Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Friday, August 11, 2000
Arizona State Capitol, Executive Tower
1700 W. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor, State Reception Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Friday, August 11, 2000 with Co-Chairpersons Sharon Megdal, Ph.D. and Martin Shultz presiding. Other members in attendance were Steve Basila, John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Kurt Davis, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Richard P. Narcia, Kevin Olson, Ingo Radicke, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman and Frank Thorwald. Also present were Alan Maguire, John Carlson and Matt Carpenter.
Welcome, Opening Remarks
Dr. Megdal called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. She reviewed the agenda and outlined the objectives for the meeting. Both chairpersons addressed the changes to the Task Force schedule, which were described in their letter to Task Force members. The new schedule calls for the Task Force to conduct its public meetings on proposed recommendations during January and February 2001 and to submit its final report to the Governor in April. The goal was to improve the chances of an increased public and legislative understanding of the recommendations that would be presented by the Task Force. Dr. Megdal noted that a new Task Force roster had been prepared and asked that changes be submitted to Mr. Carpenter.
Acceptance of Minutes for June 7, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Roundtable Discussion of Identified Overall System Goals
Dr. Megdal highlighted the annotated Summary of Identified Overall System Goals established at the Task Force’s retreat in Casa Grande on March 17 and 18. Mr. Maguire described what he would like to accomplish in the meeting.
The first goal discussed was: Consistent, minimum statewide standards for quality and performance should be established. Based on these standards, system performance should be measured and reported.
Ms. Ralston recapped a discussion of the Definitions of Needs, Revenues and Resources (DNRR) committee and a consensus for a needs based analysis to be included with every project. Mr. Mawhinney suggested that an advisory group be put together to create standardized data and terms. He felt this would facilitate the creation of clear recommendations. He also felt that the standards established then need to be applied consistently in the project selection process. Dr. Megdal agreed that experts should be providing input on how a consistent evaluation of projects could be accomplished. Mr. Shultz asked if any response had been received on this issue from the COGs and whether Booz Allen might make any specific recommendations that would establish logical, reasonable requirements. Mr. Maguire updated the Task Force members on the status of the database development as it relates to standard data and requests for project specific information from the COGs.
Task Force members discussed the issue of actual costs versus cost estimates on transportation projects. Mr. Bivens suggested that everyone involved with planning and implementing transportation projects, the MPOs, COGs, state and district engineers, etc., use a standard system and then evaluate how well the projects track to the plans to ensure that an effective system is created. Mr. Thorwald added that guidelines for projects should be set relative to what objective will be accomplished, i.e. demand reduction, and that the COGs should be provided with additional funding to help them accomplish the additional work.
Mr. Shultz raised the issue of how the statewide standards and system performance measurement and reporting could be implemented on a fast track. Dr. Megdal suggested that the Task Force needs to define what it means by a system and discuss program goals that determine how a system is developed. She felt it important to determine what the various governance organizations want to do. Mr. Shultz asked how the Task Force recommendation could be incorporated into the consultants’ contracts. Mr. Thorwald suggested that the Task Force needs to specifically lay out expectations and mandates in a uniform method then ask the COGs/MPOs for feedback. He felt this would help the Task Force’s cause at the legislature.
Dr. Megdal summarized that the Task Force had reached general agreement on the need to have projects evaluated in a standard framework but had not reached agreement on how to implement the recommendation with the COGs and MPOs.
Mr. Davis felt that the Task Force had three options for proceeding: 1) let the COGs and MPOs establish the standards themselves, 2) include the standards as part of the Task Force’s recommendation to the legislature, or 3) establish/implement the standards by executive order from the Governor.
Dr. Megdal suggested that yet another committee determine how the recommendation should be crafted and to get the governance organizations’ response to the issue. Mr. Shultz referred to the Casa Grande Resolves where the COGs and MPOs indicated they would like to be part of the solution. He asked if it would be reasonable to contract with the consultants to determine what the COGs and MPOs have to say. Dr. Megdal established that a few people present had sat through the Casa Grande Resolves. She stated that the purpose of that endeavor was to revamp the planning process for the statewide program; however, she felt that the Task Force was talking about something much broader. Mr. Maguire added that the fundamental issues of the Casa Grande Resolves dealt with process and communication. Mr. Eric Anderson from MAG commented that the Casa Grande Resolves were triggered by TEA-21, and the result was that ADOT was brought back into the regional planning process formally. He stated that there have been additional meetings to continue to improve on the process. He agreed that the consistency of data is important. Mr. Shultz established that everyone agrees that the process is evolutionary. He reiterated the Task Force goals to be able to deal with the state in some form of totality and to establish a level of consistency as it relates to overall project costs. He suggested that the consultants develop standard data at the fundamental level.
Ms. Ralston agreed that the issues need to be discussed and included in an approach to achieve consistency, but felt that the details couldn’t all be worked out during this meeting. She suggested the need to put the most critical issues in the plan and that the Task Force be part of the driving force to establish and implement standards for quality and performance. Mr. Shultz agreed with Ms. Ralston and added that the Task Force’s decision making and ability to create a top-notch hypothetical plan are dependent upon evaluating the most comprehensive set of data possible.
Mr. Olson agreed with the need for reliable data on costs. Relative to the state’s measurement of system performance, he suggested that the state should require consistent and regular reporting of data in order to make rational decisions about the state’s transportation system. He cited Maricopa County as an example of a reporting program that works. He suggested that the true consensus of the Task Force is that they aren’t sure what data they need, but they need that data consistently and regularly and in such a fashion that it provides an opportunity to effectively evaluate need. Dr. Megdal agreed and added that the Task Force should to also consider timing and order of work with the COGs, MPOs and consultants.
Mr. Narcia expressed concern that the Task Force was too focused on urban areas. He stressed the needs in less populated areas of the state and specifically in the Indian Nations, whose perspective was not addressed in the interim report. He emphasized the need for tribal input to achieve a complete document.
After a ten-minute recess, the Task Force considered the second and third goals: 2) The roles and responsibilities of all participants in the system (including state government, local governments, tribal governments and regional planning entities) should be determined, integrated and better coordinated. Planning, programming, and reporting processes must be integrated to ensure a sustainable and reliable system. 3) The governance of the system must establish clear accountability and strengthen public confidence in the system. Planning, funding (including taxation), implementation and performance monitoring responsibilities should be linked to achieve this goal.
Mr. Davis explained that the Governance committee members agree on the concept of this goal but clearly disagree on the details for achieving the goal. He stated that the committee would likely come back with two or three recommendations for consideration by the full Task Force. He stated that they are in agreement with the core principles from the retreat in Casa Grande. He summarized the basis for the committee members’ positions. If the state moves to a more locally controlled process, how does it ensure data and standards are consistent. If the state moves to a more centralized system, how are decisions made that benefit the entire state? Mr. Maguire agreed that the July committee meeting resulted in differing views but commonality in the objectives.
Mr. Davis said that the committee reached one area of agreement, that being that aviation and rail may not fit within the governance structure recommendation and may have to stand alone. The members came to the conclusion that these two modes of transportation may require separate recommendations to include linkages to other forms of ground transportation.
Referencing the summary sheet for the DNRR committee meeting of July 26, Ms. Ralston noted that the 12 items include several roles and responsibilities topics and were not prioritized in any way. She discussed the format of the meeting, which resulted in the 12 statements intended to identify where the committee needs to concentrate its efforts from a needs perspective. She stated that with limited resources and growing demand, there needs to be statewide control of transportation and long-term planning. They did not discuss specifics relative to statewide control and long-term planning.
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that statement 10, "regional/local taxing authority (w/state approval) for regional projects" needed to include transportation authority not just taxing authority.
A discussion took place relative to how the committee work is fitting into the overall objectives of the Task Force. The future work agenda of the committees and Task Force was discussed. Mr. Thorwald suggested creating a matrix of what the committees are doing and what conclusions they are reaching to help move ideas forward. Mr. Shipman stated that the Task Force needs to discuss the definition of Arizona’s transportation system. Dr. Megdal reviewed the direction of the executive order to create a comprehensive multi-modal transportation system to serve the state of Arizona. She suggested that the Task Force has been asked to look at the system from a very broad perspective and focus on issues leading to improvements in the system at a higher level. The Task Force needs to make decisions that are not contrary to regional transportation goals.
Ms. Ralston commented that the DNRR committee struggled initially but came to the conclusion that they needed to define guidelines and construct a mechanism for how monies are spent so as to protect, maintain and allow expansion of the state’s transportation system. The system has not yet been defined. They recognize that there has to be some kind of oversight process in that the state will always have a limited source of funding for transportation. They also recognize the need to increase the current funding pool.
Mr. Shipman requested confirmation that the Task Force is dealing only with state and federal funds and not at all with local funds used for transportation purposes. Mr. Maguire cautioned about drawing the line at state and federal funding and not paying attention to local funding at this time.
Dr. Megdal asked if other committees were struggling with the definition of the system. Mr. Olson stated that his committee is not struggling with the definition of the system. However, they recognize that while roads dominate the system, they must focus on the customer and how to make the system customer focused. He agreed that everything falls back to how much money is available.
Ms. Manning felt strongly that the key to an effective state transportation system is more state control in the form of providing strong direction and standard guidelines to local and regional transportation planning entities. She asked how priorities are determined without true state control. She stressed the need for consistency in how transportation funds are used.
Mr. Shipman said that more state control is the only solution that will create what is needed. He posed the questions, "What are the needs for the system? How is the system defined? Is the system definition based upon needs?"
In response to the questions, Mr. Maguire commented that the Task Force must ensure that transportation dollars are spent to further the state’s transportation goals. He stated that the framework "how" is more important than "who" is involved. He said that if the number one objective is to maximize throughput, the state will get similar implementation decisions at all levels of government. The problem currently is that one level of government has one goal while another level of government has a completely different goal. He said that as long as all involved have the same goal, all will come to the same conclusion. Therefore, the key is to standardize goals by making them statewide. He asked Mr. Davis to think about when the Governance committee needs to meet with the full Task Force. Mr. Davis answered that after their next two meetings, the Governance committee should be able to come to the full Task Force for a decision or additional direction.
Discussion moved on to the fourth goal: Emphasis must be placed on operation and maintenance of system assets to protect the investment and to improve overall utilization of the system.
Ms. Ralston stated that the DNRR committee agreed that preservation of assets and maintenance of the existing system should be the state’s highest transportation priority. Mr. Mawhinney added that the objective was to emphasize system operation and maximize the utilization of existing resources. Dr. Megdal conveyed the consensus of the Task Force, which was full agreement with these points. Mr. Carlson requested that the committee identify some specific "bullet points" to clarify the objective. Dr. Megdal stressed the need to include appropriate elements when estimating the cost of something, i.e. maintenance of the regional freeway system.
Mr. Olson disagreed with the statement that maintenance should come above all else. He did feel that the state should deal more effectively with maintenance and give it a higher priority.
Mr. Bivens expressed his desire to see the Task Force create a list of issues on which they have reached consensus and move on to issues they have not adequately discussed, such as land use and growth. With respect to the issue of land use and growth, Mr. Shultz stressed the need for a mechanism to ensure cooperation between local and state governments on the issues of land use planning and transportation. He commented on the statewide growth issues at the political level and noted that they include no transportation elements, yet growth has a marked effect on the state’s transportation system. Mr. Bivens presented a report he prepared on Arizona’s growth as evidenced by county population changes projected between 2000 and 2020 and again between 2020 and 2040.
Mr. Shultz stated that if the Task Force makes a recommendation relative to increasing capacity of the existing system, then it needs to establish the maximum capacity of that system.
Mr. Radicke stated that ADOT’s policy is to make the existing system safer and maximize capacity.
Task Force members agreed there was no need to discuss goal five: Comprehensive financial management processes (including revenue forecasting techniques and expenditure management techniques) should be expanded to all aspects of the system. It was decided that there was not sufficient time to continue discussion of the system goals.
Discussion of Future Schedule
Dr. Megdal asked how the Task Force members wanted to proceed to maximize the use of their remaining time. An option was to conduct a series of committee meetings to allow the committees to come up with recommendations and then follow with a full Task Force meeting to include a continuation of today’s discussion. She presented a list of outstanding issues that had been identified: 1) land use and transportation, 2) aviation, 3) tribal lands and transportation, 4) rail service, 5) the Vehicle License Tax, and 6) the impact of the ballot issues after the November elections.
Mr. Bivens asked for a brief update on the consultants’ activity. He complemented Mr. Maguire and the ADOT/Governor’s staff on their work and emphasized the benefit and importance of sharing the committee meeting minutes with all members of the Task Force. To that suggestion, Dr. Megdal requested that staff circulate draft minutes as soon as possible after each committee and Task Force meeting.
Dr. Megdal explained that the state has a list of selected public participation and outreach consultants on call, and the Task Force can select among those for particular tasks. She stressed the need to begin working on the public input meetings in January as well as the stakeholder and legislative meetings. Mr. Bivens commented that the consultants can be excellent at enhancing the results of the public participation process.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that through his participation in all of the committees recently, he heard a recognition that the recommendations that will relate to new construction will take at least seven years to come to fruition. This will make it very difficult to convince the public and legislature to support new revenue sources. Therefore, he believes the Task Force must present something that the Governor can implement that will have an immediate and visible impact on the commuting public. He felt strongly that the Task Force should come up with an "immediate action program" to enhance the public’s image of the transportation system. He cited ITS recommendations that currently exist as examples of programs that could be implemented. Mr. Shultz added that there exists data on congestion management at key intersections that could be evaluated and considered by the Task Force. He agreed there are probably strategies that could be implemented to achieve the goal Mr. Mawhinney identified, including demand reduction strategies.
At the request of Mr. Bivens, Mr. Maguire reviewed the current activities of the consultants. He reviewed what the "needs" consultants have accomplished thus far and their next steps. He anticipated that they had another 30 days work. Wilbur Smith, the revenue consultants, have almost completed the preponderance of their task to compare Arizona to other states. Next they will develop projections for alternative revenue sources. Based on the work of the Needs and Revenue consultants, the Analytical consultants, Booz-Allen Hamilton, will then be preparing three hypothetical, 20-year plans.
Dr. Megdal raised the issue of the Vehicle License Tax (VLT) on recreational vehicles in Arizona as compared to other states. She stated that it will be very important to make sure the Task Force has a very thorough discussion on the VLT data.
Mr. Maguire indicated that he would be planning committee meetings in September and another full Task Force meeting in October. He committed to getting a schedule out as soon as possible. Dr. Megdal said it may be necessary for the Task Force to consider working on a three-week cycle if they determine that they need more time.
Call to the Public
There were no requests to speak.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEDGAL, Co-Chairperson
