Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, July 27, 2000
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona
The Planning and Programming Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, July 27, 2000 with Chairman Kurt Davis presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, John Bivens, Dave Olney and Jim Shipman. Also present were Mary Lynn Tischer; Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company and Jennifer Macdonald, Legislative Liaison.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 1:46 p.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for June 22, 2000
A motion to approve the minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting was made by Mr. Shipman, seconded by Mr. Olney and passed unanimously.
Roundtable Discussion of Alternative Governance Structures
Mr. Maguire reviewed a handout outlining key discussion points from the June 22, 2000 Governance Committee meeting.
Mr. Shipman mentioned the relationship between land use development and transportation. He stated that they need to determine where authority lies. He noted that if the Sierra Club initiative is successful, the issue of land use will be brought to the forefront. It was pointed out that they would not know about the Sierra Club initiative until November.
Mr. Maguire referred to a letter from the Co-Chairs extending the schedule for the Task Force.
Mr. Shipman asked if there will be an increased role or change in who has authority, whether or not the Sierra Club or Growing Smarter initiatives pass. Mr. Swanson, PAG representative, stated that there would not be because even if a local government wanted to do something, they would not be able to without the state’s permission. He suggested that the majority of jurisdictions are jealous of their land use authority.
Mr. Bivens expressed his opinion that land use and transportation are inseparable. He stated that ADOT should only be involved in land use as it pertains to transportation needs and that land use decisions should remain in the authority of the local government. He suggested recommending that any major development, which would have an impact beyond its immediate environment, be required to determine the impact it may have on traffic generation and, only then, should the state permit the distribution of state transportation money.
Mr. Shipman noted that the federal government uses a similar approach and asked if a regional or state entity has the planning capability to engage in a land use discussions. He questioned who would have the authority to withhold funds. Mr. Bivens suggested that the state would have that authority.
Mr. Swanson said that the Regional Committee recommended establishing a review authority with the local jurisdictions, however it did not pass through the legislature. He explained that his organization comments on traffic impacts and then passes those comments on to the jurisdiction in which the project falls.
Mr. Shipman pointed out that, as things are now, no one takes ultimate responsibility for denying a project, it just fails to get funded.
Mr. Bivens explained that he is suggesting that a process be put in place requiring local governments to look at land use issues in order to get state funding.
Mr. Davis expressed his opinion that using the state to incentize local governments does not work. He suggested that the state’s notion of what is important can be very different from what is important to local governments. He agreed that accountability needs to be assigned, but said that the state is not capable of figuring out the long-term transportation plan for the communities within the state.
Mr. Bivens clarified his suggestion explaining that the state should only have responsibility over those projects that effect the statewide system. He stated that currently, no one requires a community to prove that they can resolve their traffic challenges.
Mr. Davis suggested that if the county had authority over every aspect of transportation they would be more inclined to ask for data before making decisions. He questioned, however, what decisions the county can impact if they do not have authority over all aspects.
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Davis if he is suggesting that the interdependency be concentrated into one entity. Mr. Davis stated that he believes there needs to be one entity that is ultimately accountable. He said that he would redirect the current revenue streams to that one entity and suggested that the state’s current authority be transferred to the counties.
Mr. Shipman noted that some people have suggested that Maricopa County should be split and suggested that what works for smaller counties may not work for larger counties. Mr. Davis stated that that argument arises out of the frustration people feel because of the current system. He suggested that by creating a jurisdiction that has ultimate authority, decisions would be made and there would be someone to hold accountable for those decisions. He stated that taxpayers and voters in the county could react if they are not happy with the decisions being made.
Mr. Olney stated that it is a good premise but does not work well in Maricopa County. He agreed that it could work if it were structured correctly. He noted that they are seeing more cooperation between cities that have common borders and expressed his opinion that anything that would encourage that type of cooperation would be good.
Mr. Shipman stated that there are two ways to proceed; either strengthen the local government’s authority or clarify the role of the state.
Mr. Maguire stated that the main issues seem to be who has ultimate authority, responsibility and accountability and what the external impacts are of the decisions being made.
Mr. Olney noted that some cities require developers to address their impacts on the surrounding environment.
Mr. Maguire suggested that the debate does not focus on political boundaries so much as how geographic areas are impacted by transportation patterns. He questioned how they can ensure that the different jurisdictions would work together to create a seamless system. He noted that there is not a defined hierarchy with respect to roads by jurisdiction. Mr. Olney agreed that there needs to be connectivity between cities and suggested that this may be an area for cooperative planning. Mr. Davis noted that they have the same issues in regards to bikes, buses and so forth.
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Davis if he believes the state needs to strengthen their multi-modal planning function. Mr. Davis stated that he does not because what is good for one county may not be good for another. He suggested that they should invest in regions building that capability.
Mr. Davis explained that he suggested counties be given the authority because an infrastructure and boundaries are already in place and it seems to make sense to interlink it with other responsibilities that exist with the county. He said that he wants counties to have the ability to carry out what their communities want and to be able to hold the counties accountable for their decisions.
Mr. Shipman suggested that Mr. Davis’s concept is politically and pragmatically impossible, but suggested that they could redesign the districts within the department. Mr. Davis stated that he does not want authority to reside with the department.
Mr. Bivens asked who would resolve conflicts between the counties. Mr. Davis said the State Board would act in a quasi-judicial role to resolve those types of issues.
Mr. Maguire questioned using the county boundaries. Mr. Davis agreed that county boundaries would not be perfect because they were not done in a rational way. He said that they may need to define new regional boundaries.
Mr. Bivens asked Mr. Davis how he would reconcile revenue generation with revenue use, noting that some small counties would not be able to generate enough money. Mr. Davis explained that they would have to redistribute the current revenue and that Pima and Maricopa Counties would have to assist smaller counties. He suggested that the net loss would be minimal. He noted that, in his system, Native American communities could be significant players in some counties. He suggested that if people were held accountable for the money they spend, they would spend it more wisely.
Mr. Shipman asked if it is possible to turn federal tax money over to local jurisdictions. Mr. Swanson stated that he did not believe it is to any significant degree because of the way the money is designated. He explained that the state agency has to certify the use of the funds. Mr. Davis cited examples of how the state turns federal tax money over to local jurisdictions. Ms. Tischer explained that there are a couple different ways in which federal money is returned to the state and different requirements based on how the money is used. She stated that there are constraints that would need to be dealt with. Mr. Davis agreed that there are constraints that would have to be dealt with, but suggested that they could be dealt with at a different level.
Ms. Tischer suggested that taking land use authority from the local jurisdictions and giving it to counties would be as difficult as giving it to the state. Mr. Davis agreed that any worthwhile reform will cause a fight, but stated that it is still their responsibility to put forth proposals for the Governor’s review. He said that nothing will change unless they think outside the current system.
Mr. Shipman suggested that the legislature has more control over counties than municipalities. Mr. Maguire agreed, noting that there are restrictions in Arizona that limit the statutory power of the legislature impacts on chartered cities, however all charters still flow from the state and an amendment to the state constitution takes precedent over any charter rule.
Mr. Shipman asked if the committee agrees that the state should strengthen their multi-modal planning function and, if so, would they give the state any more authority. Mr. Bivens stated that he feels strongly that they do need to strengthen the state’s transportation function and that the state needs a comprehensive statewide multi-modal system. He noted that the state currently has authority that it is not exercising. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Bivens how he would define the system. Mr. Bivens defined it as being various forms of transportation, each allowed to do what they do best, melded into a seamless system. He cautioned that if all authority is given at the local level, it will create a patchwork rather than seamless system. He suggested that the state needs to provide an overall framework.
Mr. Maguire summarized some of the common points being made. He said that there is a consensus that there needs to be more connection between the beginning and end of the process and that there are natural geographic areas where transportation planning makes sense. He said that the regions, however they are defined, need to work together and need to take into account the effect development has on other areas. He suggested that Mr. Bivens is arguing for a higher level of authority because it can benefit smaller jurisdictions by means of information flow. He identified another issue as being who would have primacy if there are different levels of authority. Ms. Tischer stated that if they do not have things in place to ensure a collaborative effort, the agency with primacy needs to be able to make the decisions. Mr. Bivens agreed that ADOT needs to cooperate with other entities.
Mr. Eric Anderson, Transportation Manager, MAG, cited US 60 in Tempe as a good example of when a city and ADOT collaborate. He noted that the county permitted Anthem without requiring the necessary transportation infrastructure and that the state now has to deal with its impact. He suggested that Mr. Davis’s concept would give a small number of people a great deal of power. Mr. Davis stated that, currently, the county does not have ultimate accountability because they do not control the overall transportation plan. Mr. Anderson disagreed, stating that counties have authority now, but do not exercise it.
Mr. Maguire suggested that decisions, with respect to rural communities, would be different if made by MAG or by the county. He said that the current disconnect between counties and the Regional Council creates a problem.
Mr. Davis said that he is not necessarily talking about counties as they exist today, but some regional entity. Mr. Anderson questioned how it would differ from counties. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Anderson if he believes MAG is a decision-maker. Mr. Anderson stated that it is. Mr. Davis asked what taxing authority MAG has. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that it has no taxing authority.
Mr. Olney agreed that there is a disconnect. Mr. Maguire asked how and where the links should be made.
Mr. Shipman asked what the governance problems are in the department. He questioned whether the transportation board should be expanded or if the districts should be redefined. He asked if they need to make a greater commitment to multi-modal planning. He said that they need to determine where the focus should lie. He suggested they also look at who else is involved, including MPO’s and COG’s. He questioned how well the different entities involved communicate. He asked if COG’s have the proper authority to make the system work. He suggested that they may need to create a new institution if it is determined that the state department is not working effectively.
Mr. Maguire suggested that there are four or five common threads to the discussion and offered to create a summary of what the state currently does for comparison to those common threads. Mr. Bivens stated that they do not need to spend a great deal of time going over ADOT’s duties and authorities; however, it may be helpful to examine where they are in relation to the points brought up during this discussion. He stated that they need to recognize the need to service rural areas of the state, noting that they would see more economic development in those areas. He pointed out that they have not looked at what people in rural areas say about the need for connectivity.
Mr. Maguire expressed his opinion that there has been a fundamental change in the ADOT Board. He explained that the original idea was for the Board to have a statewide perspective. However, he said that since 1990 Board members seem to view themselves as representatives of their areas. Ms. Macdonald asked what evidence Mr. Maguire has seen to support his opinion, noting that all votes by the Board have been unanimous. Mr. Maguire said that he believes the Board members believe it is their role to push forward things that their areas need. Mr. Bivens suggested Board members go through a training program. He agreed with Mr. Maguire that the Board originally looked at things from a statewide perspective. He asked how the state decided on the current engineering district configuration. Mr. Maguire explained that, to some extent, it was to balance the workload of the district engineers.
Mr. Davis asked if they can agree to take the principals that Mr. Maguire laid out to determine where they reside and bring it back to the next meeting. He reminded the committee that they can provide multiple recommendations to the Task Force who will then decide how to proceed. He suggested that it may be a good thing that the Committee does not agree because it will provide more than one alternative. Mr. Bivens agreed that uniformity is not necessary.
Mr. Shipman asked how often the Board acts in an audit function mode versus policy development mode. Ms. Tischer stated that they are not in audit mode very often however, they do oversee the budget. She noted that policies are usually discussed during study sessions. Mr. Shipman suggested that the Board could be overloaded. Mr. Maguire stated that the volume of transactions have increased, but does not believe it has had a substantial impact on the Board’s workload. He suggested that the Board provides a general oversight function and acts in an advisory capacity to the department. He expressed his opinion, however, that they do not provide any long-term visioning for the system as a whole. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Maguire stating that the department lost their strategic focus and evolved into a case by case focus. He stated that the department should revisit their policies and mission statements. He suggested that there has been a shift over the last two years and that the overall focus is returning.
Discussion of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: An Assessment of the Transportation Planning Process – A Report to Congress
This item was deferred to the next Governance Committee meeting.
Call to the Public
No requests to address the committee were submitted.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
