Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
9:00 a.m., Thursday, May 27, 1999
Arizona State Capitol
1938 Edition Building
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance Committee met in official session for a Regular Meeting at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, May 27, 1999, with Chairperson Kurt Davis presiding. Other members present were Tom Browning, Patrick Carlin, Priscilla Cornelio, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke and Jim Shipman. Others present were Tim Ahrens, Stephanie Bondeson, Jim Bourey, Dale Buskirk, John Carlson, Dean Giles, Robert Hollis (arrived at 10:35), Alan Maguire, Jennifer Macdonald, John McGee, Lorraine Moreno and Harry Reed.
Welcome, Acceptance of 4/22/99 Minutes
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order. He explained that the meeting system has changed, it will be more interactive and less formal. He welcomed Ingo Radicke who is replacing John Hudson. Mr. Davis introduced Alan Maguire, a consultant for the Task Force, John McGee, who is replacing Suzanne Sayle as CFO, Dale Buskirk, acting division director, and Jennifer Macdonald, staff liaison for the Committee.
The Minutes of the April 22, 1999 meeting were approved, seconded and passed. Public speakers were told to fill out cards requesting an opportunity to speak.
Discussion: Preliminary Revenue "Matrix"
Mr. McGee, Chief Financial Officer from ADOT, presented a summary of the information previously presented to the Vision 21 Task Force and slides on transportation funding. The slides were included in the handout received by all members.
Mr. Browning requested information on a state level for 1998. Mr. McGee indicated this information is not available at this time. Federal funds are available for transit purposes and are intended for capital usage, and there is some allotment for administration. The highway funds are distributed to the state. The bulk comes from gas tax. Mr. Browning requested the distribution formula. Mr. McGee will supply those formulas. Aviation funds are available for capital and are derived from airline ticket sales and fuel tax. On a state level, the primary revenue is from Highway User Revenues and can only be used for streets and highways. Vehicle License tax and driver license fees also contribute to the state fund. Distribution percentages were reviewed. The distribution is projected at $6.8 million in 1999 and $12.3 million in 2000. All of the funds can be used for administration and capital purposes.
The State Lottery is available for transit and highway use. Mr. Davis asked who is the recipient of lottery funds. Mr. McGee indicated cities under 300,000 receive funds for transportation purposes and cities over 300,000 receive funds for highways. Ms. Cornelio asked if anything is received from Powerball and Mr. McGee answered affirmatively.
The regional half cent sales tax, used for completion of the regional freeway system will expire in December 2005. Mr. Carlson indicated a bill has passed expanding the ability of rural counties to increase sales tax for highway usage. Ms. Cornelio indicated the Board of Supervisors can adopt the sales tax.
Mr. Browning inquired if the Aviation Fund includes rental car fees. Mr. Carlson indicated it only includes license tax and ticket sales tax. Mr. Carlson indicated support for Grand Canyon airport is from the General Fund ($2 million).
Mr. McGee discussed the federal funding breakdown. Mr. Bourey asked that these amounts be broken down more specifically; they are supposed to be negotiated by federal law and mutually agreed upon every year. Mr. McGee indicated that the number of TMAs are federally prescribed by census, and the governor is the signator on all monies in the state. Mr. Browning asked if ADOT is advisory or decision-making. Mr. Reed indicated ADOT is decision-making, but the governor has the ultimate decision authority on federal funds. Mr. Bourey indicated money distribution needs to be mutually agreed upon by MPOs and the state – either party can veto. Discretionary money can be negotiated and the objective is to reach agreement. Mr. Shipman would like to hear from the state regarding the governor’s issue and would like a future meeting to understand this relationship. Mr. Maguire would like to discuss movement towards more branches of government sharing these agreements and it will be worked on in the next several weeks. Ms. Macdonald indicated a survey is underway, but she was not sure when it would be completed. Mr. Reed indicated Colorado is doing a study that should be completed within about a year.
Mr. McGee indicated his charts are only a starting point. Federal funding is extremely complex, but information is available. Mr. Davis would like to know who the government bodies are and what formulas are used.
A public speaker asked where the rural trust fund is going to COGs. Mr. McGee indicated the rural funds are coordinated with the state. Ms. Cornelio stated the transit fund goes to the City of Tucson instead of the urban area. Mr. Shipman indicated there are rules and regulations. MAG and TOA can put together a list of these rules. Mr. Davis asked that this be done for the next meeting. Mr. McGee indicated Aviation funds are distributed to counties, cities and airports. One million dollars in discretionary funds go to small rural transportation projects; $12.5 million goes to DPS; 30% to cities and 20% to counties.
Mr. McGee discussed forecasts, revenues and responsibility. Mr. Carlson indicated $5-6 million in revenues are generated by Cactus League baseball. He then passed out the governor’s letter regarding the Aviation Fund and briefly highlighted her intent
A break was taken from 10:25-10:35 a.m.
Discussion: Planning and Programming Process
Mr. Buskirk described the Transportation Planning and Programming Process. It is done at the local, tribal, regional, state and federal levels and includes transportation systems, state highways, county roads and city streets. Private entities are responsible for rail transportation and pipelines. Coordination is important and planning must be continuous. His handout indicated goals of efficiency, effectiveness and externality. Long-range plans need to forecast a 20-25 year planning horizon.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Buskirk to name members in this process. Names included Chris Fetzer, Tim Ahrens, Harry Reed, Dean Giles, Jim Bourey, and Robert Hollis.
Mr. Browning questioned the accountability of process. Mr. Buskirk indicated there is someone accountable at all levels. Mr. Reed indicated accountability changes with each system. Mr. Shipman questioned the adequacy of resources for planning and framework of responsibility. Mr. Buskirk indicated there are additional resources through TEA-21. Consultation, coordination and cooperation are achieved with two TMAs and four MPOs. There are significant resources at the federal level, but there is concern at the state level. Mr. Reed indicated TEA-21 and ISTEA brought in more money, but not enough. Mr. Browning asked if accountability in planning is different than execution. Mr. Reed indicated within the same organization, accountability is the same. Mr. Buskirk indicated there is a State law for joint accountability for the freeway system. Every year MAG does an audit of ADOT’s accountability and an annual report is produced It includes how schedules are being met and costs specific to freeway system. Mr. Ahrens indicated there is a performance audit every three years.
Ms. Cornelio discussed the problem with low state salaries, causing engineers to go to private entities. She suggested that approval should not have to be done in Phoenix, it takes up time and funds. She felt that this process should take place in the specific county. Accountability and resources should be under the district engineer. Mr. Buskirk stated that the planning and processing program does a good job maintaining linkage from identification of problem to process.
Mr. Hollis provided a detailed overview of the federal process. Mr. Shipman asked how many MPOs are in the western region. Mr. Hollis indicated it is an old system – California has 20, Nevada has 2, Hawaii has 1. Mr. Shipman asked what sanctions are used, and Mr. Hollis answered that federal assistance is withheld.
Ken Driggs introduced himself. He emphasized that federal rules are pervasive and prevail. Federal agencies provide 94% of funding and are in charge. Mr. Buskirk stressed the positive points, which are local decision making, the ability to marry air quality and transportation planning, and cooperation. The negative points of the system are the number of federal requirements and inflexibility of administration. Mr. Shipman asked if this has been communicated to Congress. Ms. Macdonald indicated all states presented the inadequacies to Congress. Mr. Carlin commented on the lack of engineers, and asked if there are scholarships available with a 2-3 year service contingency. Mr. Carlson stated that the governor is looking this at. Mr. Reed suggested that the engineer training program trains ADOT’s engineers for employment in the private sector.
Mr. Davis concluded the discussion.
Discussion of Committee Work Process
Mr. Maguire reviewed the Committee Work Process handout. He is looking into the system structure of other states and all requirements. Mr. Shipman indicated that research is being done on how to put together a system over a long period of time to achieve the state’s goals. Mr. Maguire indicated this is not a narrow focus, and he is attempting to fit all pieces of work process together.
Call to the Public
Mr. Bob Pane requested appropriate representation for the handicapped at these meetings. Mr. Davis indicated this is a meeting for governance. Mr. Maguire informed Mr. Pane of the many public hearings being held around the state and encouraged him to attend.
Mr. Rex Kent discussed the lack of transportation for the disabled, which is a primary concern and keeps disabled from getting jobs. He indicated it takes more time to travel to ASU West on public transportation than to Flagstaff. Mr. Olney noted that the bus service in Chandler ends at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Davis pointed out the need to think less of geographics and more of user implementation; geopolitical boundaries do not matter in user groups. Mr. Shipman agreed that the committee is here to address the issue of mobility.
Ms. DeeDee Barker encouraged mass transit and free market ideas (e.g., bike rack charges). She believes transit is under a private monopoly and there needs to be open planning and reform.
Mr. Blue Crowley stated that there was a meeting on June 1st on air quality. He asked if the state contributed to rural transit and how much would be matched. He would like to see the state build tunnels for bikes. Mr. Crowley showed a map of bike facilities and suggested that more bike lanes are necessary. For purposes of bike safety, paint should be used for crosswalks and bike lanes, and the right turn on red lights should be eliminated. Also, the college needs transit from ASU to ASU West. He indicated there should be a federal fund balance for HOV lanes. Mr. Crowley stated that Mr. Mansfield has not been present at meetings on these issues. He stressed that plans for a heavy rail need to be considered at the time of highway construction.
Closing Remarks and Preview of Next Meeting
Mr. Davis indicated the possibility of a Full Task Force Meeting on June 10. The next meeting is scheduled for June 24. Mr. Maguire indicated the June 24 meeting would be cancelled if the June 10 meeting were Full Task Force. Everyone will be notified.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
