Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

OF THE

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 22, 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, June 22, 2000, with Vice Chairperson Lisa Atkins presiding.  Other Committee members present were: Tom Browning (arrived at 1:50), Priscilla Cornelio, Ingo Radicke, and Jim Shipman.  Others present were Alan Maguire, Matt Carpenter and Harry Reed.

Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments

Ms. Atkins called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and all joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.  She expressed the apologies of Chairperson Davis who had been unable to attend.

Acceptance of Minutes for March 28, 2000

Ms. Cornelio requested that freight be added to the decision upon modes of transportation on page 2 of the minutes.

Action:            A motion to accept the minutes, as corrected, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Roundtable Discussion on Alternative Governance Structures

Mr. Maguire summarized the discussion from the last meeting of the Governance Committee and described action taken on the development of the matrix, noting that input from only four committee members was received.  With insufficient information to proceed with the development of the matrix at this time, he explained that he took the tact of researching case studies to give the committee a sense of alternative structures.  He emphasized that the alternative governance structures were designed to stimulate discussion and ideas.

Mr. Reed provided an in-depth overview of the case studies from other state’s systems all dealing with similar issues as Arizona.  The reports contain basic system information, demographics, governance structure, the mechanism for planning and programming, and the roles and responsibilities of the principle transportation entity.  The states reviewed were Oregon, Illinois, Georgia, Washington and Michigan.  Also reviewed were case studies for San Diego, California and the Georgia Region Transportation Authority.

Committee members requested and received further information about what states would change about their structures given the opportunity, the sense of administrative cost to operate the systems, and the amount of public participation in each state (greatest level in Washington and Oregon).  Mr. Reed commented that all DOTs are looking into establishing performance measures, and they all have difficulty in dealing with new capacity.

Mr. Reed highlighted the two alternative governance structure models, discussing the goals, criteria and measurement aspects.  The two structures presented were a state-centralized model, most similar to Georgia’s, and a sub-state region model, which is just a step up from where Arizona is today.  Mr. Reed presented an evaluation of the two alternatives based upon several criteria derived from the proposed governance goals.  He explained that planning and execution are kept separate in the models presented and in other states as well.

Ms. Cornelio commented that she understood the people’s desire not to have to go to Phoenix for road projects.  They believe that the people of Phoenix have no understanding of the needs of outlying areas.  From her perspective, she would like to look at a district structure, like California or Texas, where the district engineer would have a lot more power.  The State Transportation Board would still exist, but the districts would have the responsibility for planning, designing, funding and construction of projects.  Mr. Reed explained that in Texas and California, the districts receive funds that have been distributed to them based on a formula.

In response to a question by Mr. Shipman, Mr. Radicke explained how the State Transportation Board distributes funds to PAG, MAG and the rest of the state.  He noted that the larger areas in Arizona subsidize the smaller areas. 

Mr. Browning commented that he doesn’t see the other models operating any better than Arizona currently operates.  Mr. Reed confirmed that they don’t.  They simply follow a different delivery system.  A couple of states may be more effective because they operate at a level closer to the local community.  He stated that no states use one common set of criteria for determining need across all modes of transportation.  The two discussed this issue as it relates to the aviation needs assessment.  Mr. Reed explained that standard criteria are used for transit systems.  Mr. Ken Driggs, Executive Director, Regional Public Transportation Authority explained how transit systems in Arizona are funded and operated by the Regional Public Transit Authority.  He stated that the power of funding transcends almost every issue.  In terms of a model to follow, Mr. Driggs stated that San Diego probably has the most likely scenario to use.

Mr. Browning stated that there needs to be common principles in terms of what transportation planning is.  He cited aviation and transit as two good examples.  Mr. Radicke stated that the goal is to get 10 percent of the single occupant vehicles off the highways.  Mr. Driggs stated that this would be a realistic goal during peak hour travel.  He suggested that the state needs to make a concurrent transit investment to enhance highway investment.  Mr. Browning stated that consistent criteria is needed and that mobility is the primary issue.  Mr. Driggs commented that the state needs a fiscally constrained plan to avoid unreal expectations.  Ms. Cornelio and Mr. Shipman both felt that criteria is an issue that should be dealt with by Planning & Programming.  They asked that the discussion be pulled back to how the transportation system in the state is organized.

Mr. Shipman noted the high linkage between who has the money and who has the authority.  If the committee were to consider a sub-state authority, it would have to ask if the money flows with the authority or where the balance is struck.  He stated that the problem revolves around the lack of adequate funds.  He suggested that the group discuss the connection between role and responsibility and funding and how that can be strengthened.  He said he is seeing the emergence of stronger sub-state roles, and the committee needs to decide if the state should continue in a regional direction. 

Mr. Maguire shared his observations:  1) Funding and authority were always consistent in Mr. Reed’s research.  There were no examples where the money was collected locally and transferred to a higher level of government.  2) There are two pressing issues—responsiveness to the needs and demands, and agility or the ability of the entity to respond quickly to changing needs.  He said that changes in other states seem to be motivated by these two pressures, and he suggested they be kept in mind as the committee looks at the current system.

Mr. Shipman raised the issue of the link between land use planning and transportation planning.  He was not sure that the Governance Committee could tackle this issue.  He feels that the state missed the mark with Growing Smarter by not fully addressing the problem. 

Mr. Radicke expressed concern that the state doesn’t have a holistic structure.  He wondered whether the MPO/TMA structure is effective because they are not responsible for maintenance and operation.  He suggested there should be one super structure with the big picture in mind for the entire state. 

Ms. Cornelio envisioned a structure where the new revenues, generated by legislation, would go to ADOT and then flow down.  The group discussed in general how funds flow now through the state, but not necessarily through ADOT, other than administratively handling the funds.  Mr. Shipman stated that the new revenues must be responsive to the multi-modal charge.  He said that the state has the responsibility to plan, coordinate and link all modes and serve in a support role for pass through funds.  A regional entity would then help communities benefit from the funds.  Mr. Radicke expressed concern with this concept from a rural perspective.  Mr. Shipman added that the state would provide the mechanism for rural communities to leverage funding with federal dollars to do things they have not been able to do in the past.  He stated the need for enabling legislative support, which ought to be based on communities perceived needs.  Mr. Shipman was in favor of continuing with the system as is, but providing a few more tools to enable smaller communities.  He spoke to the need to expand transit staffing at ADOT to give more support to the local jurisdictions. 

Mr. Carlson indicated he would ask for input as to the transit staffing needs at ADOT.  He would also ask for their expertise on the coordination between ADOT and DES on the economic service moneys. 

Mr. Radicke suggested that the state needs to make sure the counties are able to help themselves to make sure they are expending funds for the intended purpose.  He felt this was a possible problem in his county.  He suggested the need for a state audit function.

The group discussed the issue of a state rail authority.  Ms. Cornelio felt that a beefed up state transit entity should also be responsible for inter-region rail service. 

The group discussed the similarity between this and the concept of a regional aviation authority.  Mr. Browning explained how the aviation authorities operate and the benefits of such a governance system.  He stressed the importance of the role that air travel and transport will play in the state’s future.  He believes that congestion will throw the state into a situation where mobility issues are compromised, as well as safety.  He defined a region in terms of air space.  Mr. Browning stated that a regional aviation authority would require serious deliberation.  He noted that the rules would be different for Tucson than for Phoenix.  He said that if the committee is serious about recommending a regional authority, they would need to understand what it really means, and this would require research similar to what Mr. Reed did for the states’ transportation systems.  Ms. Cornelio felt that the consensus reached was that air should be a regional authority that is a new organization, starting in Phoenix and possibly later in Tucson, with the exact structure determined at a later date or by another group.  Mr. Browning agreed this was a reasonable approach.  Mr. Carlson stated that there are six airport authorities in Arizona, but they are simply management authorities and do not have the power the committee is talking about.

Mr. Carlson suggested that the Task Force take up the issue of where rural airports are located if it wants to restore the Flight Property Tax.  He added that the state may need to identify regionally significant airports to maximize the use of funding available.  Mr. Radicke agreed with this suggestion.  Mr. Reed mentioned that the Minnesota DOT controls all airport funds.

As to the issue of further meetings, Mr. Maguire said he would prepare a summary of the discussions to date, circulate that information and also circulate a calendars for members to jot down possible meeting dates. 

Mr. Radicke stated that rail service would take on new significance if there was a regional airport between Tucson and Phoenix.

Call to the Public

Mr. Tom Swanson, Pima Association of Governments, affirmed that it is the money that drives the state/local balance issue.  He stated that the entire state is growing, not just the metropolitan communities.  He noted the lacking planning capabilities at ADOT as well as their ability to deal with these issues.  He advocated a strong statewide planning function at ADOT.  He noted that state departments dealing with infrastructure have similar goals, and it would behoove everyone to forget power issues and focus on spending the funds available right.  He spoke to the need for maximum cooperation between state and regional entities.  He said it would be a shame to get into a rural/urban fight when the issue is lack of resources in both sectors.  He suggested that more progress has been made over the past few years by working together.  He stressed the need to ensure that the rural parts of the state are covered adequately, and the COGS are not able to meet this need. 

Mr. Terry Johnson, Maricopa Association of Governments, commented on the good regional discussion.  He noted that California has a process by which it sends money to the MPOs.  He mentioned a discussion at the Planning & Programming Process Committee meeting earlier in the day where they considered handing over the Roads of Regional Significance issue to Governance. 

Ms. Lynn Timmons, City of Phoenix, emphasized the need to include bike paths in all multi-modal references.  The transportation entity in her view needs to be accountable to the people, not the government.  She said that there is statistically reliable information that needs to be considered.  She called for the expansion of ADOT to a multi-modal department.  She feels there is a tremendous amount of cooperation regionally in terms of transit.  The state could be helpful with statewide planning and packaging of funding needs from a federal appropriation standpoint.

Closing Remarks

There were no closing remarks.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

LISA ATKINS, Governance Vice-Chairperson