Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:39 p.m., Tuesday, March 28, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Planning and Programming Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:39 p.m., Tuesday, March 28, 2000 with Chairman Olson presiding. Other members in attendance were Co-Chairperson Sharon Megdal, Ph.D., John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Mary Peters and Rene Redondo. Also present were Mary Lynn Tischer and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor. Special guest panelists included Juanita Moffitt, Yavapai County; Steve Hansen, ADOT; Jay Dushoff, Law Offices of Dushoff & McCall; Bryan Patterson, City of Chandler and Curtis Lueck, Lueck and Associates.
Welcome
Chairman Olson called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m.
Discussion of Relationship between Transportation and Land Use Planning
Mr. Hansen provided a brief overview of the Advanced Acquisition Program. He stated that it received $100 million for the current year through a Board Funding Obligation that could be applied to advanced buying of right-of-ways. He noted that for every year they purchase something earlier then they would have they save approximately 10% in general real estate appreciation and about 30 percent by not waiting until the last minute to purchase properties. He estimated that by spending $100 million they will save $47.9 million.
Mr. Carlson provided copies of an article regarding the Loop 202. He then introduced the guest panelists.
Mr. Carlson referenced a handout entitled Potential Topics or Recommendations that separates the topics into three categories, Highway Corridor Preservation, Access Control and Highway Planning.
Dr. Megdal noted that this is a committee of the Task Force and that the Task Force as a whole is interested in broader statewide transportation issues. She asked the panelists not to feel limited to ADOT issues if they have local issues they would like to bring up. Chairman Olson agreed and said that he would encourage broader discussions concerning land use.
Mr. Carlson noted that three bulleted items included in the Potential Topics or Recommendations handout are included in SB 1334. He stated that there is a current statute that prohibits ADOT from purchasing right of ways beyond the estimated completion date of a project that is further then 10 years out. He stated that the bill would enable ADOT to acquire that property as long as it was needed for a project in the 20 Year Plan.
Chairman Olson asked the panel what limits or criteria they would suggest in terms of the ADOT budget.
Mr. Dushoff stated that there are other aspects of advanced acquisition, beyond the savings, that need to be considered. He explained that people can be kept waiting for several years and substantially hurt by the delay while ADOT makes its decisions. He stated that there are several cases that he is aware of where developers were frustrated at not being able to find out from ADOT where right of way lines will be. He stated that, while advanced acquisition does not create certainty, it does mean that ADOT has studied a given property and identified it as a probable site. He stated that, at a minimum, it does not discourage development. He stated that if ADOT is given adequate and revolving advanced acquisition funds, the number of people kept in limbo in terms of condemnation of a property will be limited.
Ms. Peters noted that Washington State has a revolving fund and believes there could be advantages to a similar program in Arizona.
Mr. Dushoff stated that he strongly favors a revolving fund because it gives ADOT a long horizon. He stated that not having a definite plan discourages the chief right of way agent and the private sector.
Mr. Hansen noted that Arizona did have a revolving fund and that almost all of US 60 was purchased with those funds. He stated it was very successful.
Mr. Carlson asked if those programs are still available with federal funding. Mr. Hansen stated that they are not.
Ms. Peters asked if Mr. Hansen would recommend that that option be there in terms of the reauthorization of TEA21. Mr. Hansen stated that it was definitely beneficial for Arizona and that a similar program would be good for ADOT.
Chairman Olson suggested that one problem could be that if the fund is interest free it does not create any incentive to pay it back. He suggested having the current program reimburse the both the capital and some type of time value of money charge so that a realistic building of the revolving fund is accomplished over time.
Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Hansen if he was contemplating that they would need more than the $10 to $20 million mentioned for spot acquisition for the whole statewide program. Mr. Hansen stated that the fund does need to be larger and that a long range commitment needs to be made to the fund.
Mr. Lueck stated that ADOT will be relying on the transportation plans of the MPO to define where the right-of-ways will occur. He stated that that begs the question as to how to get the local land use agencies within the MPOs more directly involved in the advanced dedication process. He suggested that with improved planning and coordination with ADOT and urban areas some of the property could be dedicated in advance, especially if there is an economic benefit for the property owner to dedicate that property. He stated that advanced acquisition will require that advanced engineering also be done. He stated that it may be difficult to do that type of preliminary engineering 15 to 20 years in advance. He suggested that ADOT needs to better coordinate with the local land planning organizations and get more involved in land use decisions.
Mr. Dushoff stated that it is his impression that some projects are placed in the Five Year Plan only to satisfy political or special interest groups and asked how seriously the Five Year Plan and the long range plans should be taken. He asked if any studies have been done as to whether his impression is accurate. Ms. Peters stated the projects are not placed on the Five Year Plan to satisfy political constraints, that the Five Year Plan is a covenant with the public and that there is a commitment to deliver that program. She explained that they have done studies to determine how well they are delivering the projects in the year forecasted. She noted that unavoidable issues, including environmental concerns, come up that do affect their ability to deliver. However, she stated that at the time of the study, their baseline was 67 percent and that their goal today is 95 percent. She stated that they do take local plans into consideration when developing their long range plan. She explained that the Five Year Program is the capitalization of the most current five years and that is where they want to measure and make sure they are getting the projects delivered. She stated that the Long Range Plan forces them to focus on future needs rather than planning according to today’s events. She suggested that it may also help form the future.
Dr. Megdal suggested that there was a time when too many projects were put into the program anticipating that projects would naturally slip. She noted that the projects did not disappear, they simply slipped as part of the process. She stated that they have worked to improve the process and to be more realistic, however more work needs to be done. She stated therefore that Mr. Dushoff’s impressions are not correct, however it is understandable why he would have that impression.
Ms. Peters stated that revenue projections determine what will be included in the plan and that, in the past, those projections have not been as precise as they should have been. She explained that they now do a risk analysis on the revenue forecast that determines the probability of revenues coming to the state. She stated that it is a much more finite process now. She suggested that, in the past, projects that slipped did so most often due to lack of funding. Dr. Megdal stated that there were also environmental issues that caused some projects to slip.
Mr. Patterson stated that one concern he has is what should be done with the property until ADOT needs it, noting that there are productive ways to use the property until such time. He identified a second concern as the advanced notification to the public as to what the intended use is for that property.
Ms. Peters asked for suggestions on how they can better communicate with the public since it is a very transient population. She stated that they have discussed having comprehensive information on their website and using signs along the corridor. Mr. Patterson noted that they have used signs along the Santan and have included phone numbers that people can call for additional information.
Mr. Lueck suggested that they require developers to put a full disclosure note on the plat that purchasers have to sign off on.
Dr. Megdal noted that the state has required various disclosures for years and suggested that this could be an option.
Mr. Carlson pointed out that there is a real estate statute that requires realtors to disclose that there will be a freeway, however it does not require them to get into specifics. He stated that legal action can be brought against a realtor if they fail to disclose that information. Mr. Patterson noted that those requirements apply to the original developer, however, do not carry over to subsequent sellers of the property.
Mr. Dushoff stated that the title report lists easements and questioned how many people read and understand those reports. He suggested that a less technical notification be given. He suggested that signs be put up in general when right of ways are purchased.
Ms. Peters agreed that ADOT needs to look at what will be done with the property until it is needed and stated that they have had discussions regarding this issue. She stated that they need to find ways to make it advantageous to the communities while preserving it for when it is needed.
Mr. Dushoff stated that, in speaking for the business community, the most important thing is to know what will happen and when. He explained that when ADOT acquires someone’s property stating that they need it now, and then that property goes unused for five or more years, ill-will is created. He stated that owners and tenant users need to have a definite time period to allow them to make business plans.
Mr. Bivens stated that local government is also responsible for streamlining the process. He suggested that there is not enough coordination between regional or local planners and ADOT or between the transportation planners and the planning and zoning people that determine how the land will be used. He stated that the problem they face is how to develop a plan and ensure that the plan can be carried out when planners bow to developers.
Mr. Dushoff suggested that advanced acquisition would solve the problem. He stated that developers are concerned that they will be hung out to dry while ADOT decides if they want to use their property. He stated that the minute a property is tagged by ADOT, lenders will not lend, city councils do not want to rezone and tenants will not rent.
Ms. Peters asked if there would be an advantage to having a revolving fund where local and state governments could request funds for a variety of transportation uses.
Mr. Bivens noted that years ago many states adopted Map Street Legislation which defined what would be done in advance and created a revolving fund for hardship cases. He stated that they need improve advanced planning and include a revolving advanced preliminary engineering fund so that when projects are costed out it includes enough to repay the advanced acquisition and advanced engineering funds. He suggested that that type of concept can work at both the state and local levels.
Mr. Hansen noted that it is easy to say that they should have an advanced acquisition fund, however, it involves an enormous amount of money and an immense time commitment.
Chairman Olson suggested that an advanced acquisition program makes sense, however it seems to require a significant increase in the quality of plans so decisions about buying can be more reliable and they can be more articulate to the public.
Mr. Dushoff suggested they look at Paradise Parkway as an example. He explained that the changes and ultimate cancellation of this project economically ruined people. He noted that those people were not paid anything for the losses they suffered.
Ms. Peters stated that part of the dilemma they face is in getting environmental clearance to move forward with a project that is that far in the future. She stated that if they are too finite, they predetermined the alignment before going through the environmental process. She stated that they need to balance being clear about where they will go without shutting down the analysis of alternatives once they get into the environmental clearance process. She noted that differing requirements from all of the different Federal agencies make it more difficult to layout finite right-of-way lines.
Mr. Carlson referenced the second bulleted item under Highway Planning on the Potential Topics handout and suggested that it may be helpful if Mr. Hansen and Ms. Tischer could come up with a dollar figure or number of employees it would take to move that process up from 60 percent to 30 or even 15 percent.
Mr. Redondo suggested that they need to determine if they want to be multimodal in making decisions regarding right-of-ways. He stated that they need to consider all modes of transportation and how they relate to each other.
Mr. Bivens suggested that community right-of-ways could be a source of funding. Mr. Carlson stated that the utility companies and ADOT have raised this issue and that in 1997 the legislature allowed ADOT to include utility companies when the utility companies had prior rights. He noted that the amendment to SB 1334 would allow ADOT to combine those processes when there are no prior rights.
Mr. Redondo stated that the transportation corridors should be defined to include all different elements. Mr. Carlson stated that interest has been expressed in telecommuting and having ADOT put in a conduit. Ms. Peters explained that ADOT does want to do that, unfortunately, an FCC ruling in a Minnesota project stated that if they open that right-of-way to anyone, they have to open it to everyone and this causes concern for the integrity of the right-of-ways. She expressed her opinion that the FCC overstepped the Telecommunications Act and they hope to get that narrowed down. She suggested that they should not only look at varied transportation uses, but having places for other amenities, including park and ride lots, that will maximize the use of those transportation options.
Mr. Chaco asked how ADOT handles Trust and Tribal lands in purchasing right-of-ways in perpetuity. Mr. Hanson stated that they basically have to work towards what is acceptable to both parties. He pointed out that they have no way to force the issue into court for a speedy resolution, which makes it a tug-of-war.
Mr. Chaco also mentioned that whether VLM lands are considered public lands or not is another issue that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Bivens asked how they address a situation where, on one hand, the property owner may have the right to get on a road, but, on the other hand, having curb cuts every few feet lessens the total capacity and the investment the public has made in that roadway.
Ms. Peters stated that the long range plan is the key. She stated that they then purchase access rights in advance, but require that development plans be consistent with the recognition that ADOT is putting in a control of access facility. She stated that Yavapai County is a good example of how to do it.
Mr. Bivens asked if ADOT has sufficient tools to enforce the control of access. Ms. Peters stated that in counties where they have cooperation it works, but in counties where no cooperation exists it does not work at all.
Ms. Moffitt stated that they look at what is happening and what will be needed in the future. She stated that as they purchase right-of-ways they purchase property that will be needed for upgrading the interchanges at a later date. She stated that they are planning ahead, however the problem they have is that they do not have the money to purchase the right-of-ways.
Mr. Lueck noted that a new Access Management Manual at the Federal level will be published later this year and that resources will be available which will be applicable to ADOT’s operations. He suggested that functional classification should be looked at when determining what type of access is appropriate. He stated they ADOT does not limit access enough when other alternatives are available.
In response to Chairman Olson’s request Ms. Tischer reviewed both the Access Management and Integrating Transportation and Land Use handouts.
Ms. Peters stated that when changes are made to the interstate highway system they need to look at the functional classification of the route and its intended use to determine if those changes will preserve or inhibit that use. She identified environmental justice and the perceived disparaging impacts on minority property owners as emerging issues. She noted that in many cases right-of-ways are cheaper and easier to buy in neighborhoods that are not affluent and suggested that they need to be aware of those issues.
Dr. Megdal spoke regarding a case where houses in a poor neighborhood of Tucson were left close to construction during a highway expansion and suggested that that would not have been allowed to happen in a more affluent neighborhood. She agreed that they need to be aware of how they treat different neighborhoods.
Mr. Redondo noted that there are a lot of competing interests that make access issues difficult.
Mr. Bivens suggested that the answer lies in working with the community and letting them, to a degree, determine what they want. He stated that if they want more they can have it, but at their cost. Mr. Redondo suggested that the problem with that is that it allows one person or developer with money to make the decisions.
Chairman Olson discussed the impacts of a large development, such as Anthem, on the overall system.
Mr. Bivens discussed Georgia’s Regional Transportation policy. He suggested that they find ways to strengthen ADOT and other existing organizations to make them more effective.
Mr. Carlson asked Ms. Peters when ADOT will take up the issue of establishing new control standards. Ms. Peters stated that they are looking at a one mile standard and that she estimates addressing that in late summer or early fall. Ms. Tischer stated that there will be some phasing in of that which will come to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Bivens asked if it is related to functional classification. Ms. Tischer stated that it is.
Ms. Peters noted that the Board does have authority to designate a facility access control, but the study will give more information on how to buy and what to do with access rights for those that already have access.
Mr. Carlson stated that another issue that has come up is what to do with a developer who has gotten approval for its master plan before ADOT comes along.
Mr. Redondo stated that the process is not nimble and it is part of their charge to study that and come to a conclusion on how to make it more so.
Dr. Megdal suggested that the developers’ lack of access to a highway is usually due to a lack of coordination. She asked if there is an ADOT policy on the distance between lights on highways. Ms. Peters stated that it is generally one mile.
Dr. Megdal asked when standards have to be enforced and when they do not, explaining that it seems ad hoc. Ms. Peters stated that they have adopted the ASHTO standards statewide, however local governments do not always follow them for various reasons.
Dr. Megdal asked if the state is under any obligation to compensate for harm caused to businesses. Mr. Dushoff stated that it depends on the source of the harm and that each case is considered independently. He explained that it is a difficult area because there can be genuine economic damages to a property owner, however, the courts say that that property owner does not get paid.
Ms. Tischer read the second to the last paragraph on page four of the Interstate Change of Access Report. She stated that there are a series of questions that need to be answered to determine the level of access they need to provide.
Mr. Lueck stated that ADOT is at a disadvantage when dealing with rural communities because they do not have a traffic demand model that includes all of the smaller communities in the state. Chairman Olson agreed.
Dr. Megdal asked if there should be stronger language in Growing Smarter Plus in terms of intergovernmental coordination on transportation and land use planning. She asked that any suggestions be forwarded to Mr. Carlson.
Ms. Peters spoke regarding situations where traffic dictates the need for a signal in an area where ADOT is trying to maintain an access control facility. She stated that, because of the way development has occurred, they are having to spend money in the near term that they would prefer not to spend.
Chairman Olson thanked the panelists for coming and opened the meeting up for public comment.
Call to the Public
Mr. Blue Crowley addressed the Board regarding the Yavapai County 20-Year Plan. He stated that he would like to see temporary parks created when they acquire right-of-ways so they become part of the community. He also mentioned the Joint Agency Hearing held on March 2nd and reviewed comments that were made during that meeting. He expressed his appreciation for the Park and Ride lots which have been made part of the equation. He suggested that participation between the committees should be more extensive. He also submitted MAG’s Long Range Transportation Plan. He suggested that this committee is not using its diversity to be as creative as they potentially could be. He stated that the lines of communication need to be improved between the agencies in terms of air quality.
Closing comments and adjournment.
Dr. Megdal thanked Ms. Moffitt and Yavapai County for their efforts. She stated that their organization has been very effective.
Ms. Moffitt stated that all of their towns and communities are represented and that their sub-organizations are key.
Mr. Crawley noted that ADOT will be conducting a public meeting focusing on ADOT’s management of Maricopa County’s regional freeway system this evening at 6:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Chairperson
