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, September 21, 2000
Arizona State Capitol, Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, September 21, 2000 with Chairman Kurt Davis presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, Tom Browning, Priscilla Cornelio, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke and Jim Shipman. Also present were Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for July 27, 2000
A motion to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2000 meeting was made by Mr. Radicke. Mr. Radicke took issue with the statement made by Mr. Maguire that Board members believe it is their role to advance projects in their areas. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Discussion of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: An Assessment of the Transportation Planning Process – A Report to Congress
Mr. Maguire said that the report was commissioned by Congress and looks at the operation of MPO’s in Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix and Seattle. He questioned the use of money pulled into a region as a measurement of effectiveness. He noted that the report concluded that effective leadership is critical to an MPO’s success. He suggested that that is a bad result because organizations should be structured to operate effectively regardless of its leadership. He referred to the report’s recommendations to the States’ Legislatures, USDOT and Congress. He expressed his opinion that the second recommendation made to Congress was the most surprising because it says that central city having to approve the redesignation of an MPO is problematic. Mr. Maguire noted that there are two other volumes of the report available and offered to provide copies to anyone interested in reviewing them.
In response to Mr. Shipman’s questions, Mr. Maguire said he found the report interesting in that it says anything that provides disproportionate power to any one entity causes a problem within the organization. He said that that is why he disagrees that a strong leader makes or breaks an MPO, because it indicates an imbalance of power. He referred to research done by Mr. Harry Reed, which compared different types of regional organizations. He stated that it is worth thinking about whether the Committee believes the current system makes the most sense for Arizona. Mr. Shipman asked what is the state’s role in the function of the MPO’s. Mr. Maguire said that the state’s rules regarding designation have changed over the years. He explained that it requires three steps: concurrence with the population in the region, concurrence with central city and concurrence with the Governor. He said that, because there is no pressure for those three groups to come to mutual agreement, each group has veto power and, in essence, this creates a system that maintains the status quo. He stated federal law would have to change to change the process by which things happen. Mr. Shipman suggested that the ultimate threat would be a loss of funding. Mr. Maguire agreed, stating, however, that there currently is no relationship to that threat in the current structure. He suggested that there is nothing in federal law to prohibit the state from using its power to interject in the MPO process and threaten a loss of funding. Mr. Shipman asked if he is concerned about central city. Mr. Maguire said the fact that it creates a disproportionate distribution of power is problematic. Mr. Shipman suggested that every organization is subject to political force of some nature. Mr. Maguire said that it depends on how the boundaries are set out. He said that the way any regional entity is organized has to recognize the fundamental geographic area and what the political jurisdictions are within that region.
Mr. Carlson stated that TEA 21 clarified that central city has deeper power than individual entities. Mr. Davis said that it does not preclude the governor from using leverage to ensure a redesignation happens.
Continuing Discussion of Alternative Governance Structures
Ms. Cornelio said that she thought the committee had made significant progress and were making recommendations as to where responsibilities should lie. She asked what happened since she last attended. Mr. Davis explained that four committee members responded to the matrix and since then they have discussed whether rail and air belong in discussions about changes in the governance process. He said that the committee collectively agreed that it should not and it was put aside. He stated that they then went back to notes from the Casa Grande meeting to see if they still agreed on those items. He said that they also discussed a specific recommendation he made with regards to what type of structure could speed up and improve the process and possibly giving greater control to regions, enabling them to pursue what they deem appropriate.
Ms. Cornelio asked Mr. Radicke if, from his position on the State Transportation Board, he sees changes that could be made to expedite the process. Mr. Radicke said that ADOT could use a 20-year plan and is pursing it at this time. He noted that ADOT is gathering a lot of input from communities to be sure that everyone is being heard. He stated that the Board does not get into operational details because it is in charge of overseeing the monies and construction projects. He suggested that, in the future, Board member positions may be full time jobs. He acknowledged that the system needs to be changed, but suggested they improve what they have rather than start from scratch. He expressed his opinion that local governments should not be in charge and that one properly funded, well organized entity could do the job. Mr. Radicke suggested they need a uniform system in regards to land use planning. He said that the process by which permits that affect the entire system are issued needs to be reviewed. He agreed that local authority is needed in the individual regions, but not over statewide concerns. Mr. Davis clarified his position that ADOT would have authority over cross-jurisdictional issues, but local governments would have authority over local issues. Mr. Radicke agreed that local governments should be able to determine what is best for their communities. Mr. Davis stated that there is a fundamental disagreement as to where authority should reside and that the committee needs to come to some sort of agreement.
Mr. Shipman stated that a lack of funding within the system is a major issue. He questioned where they are focusing their discussion, on existing resources and the existing system or on the possibility of additional resources and designing a new system. He asked what the committee’s position is in terms of the current system, without considering possible future resources, and the benefits of changing that system.
Mr. Davis suggested that part of increasing funding is increasing credibility. He questioned whether the money already being spent is done so in the best possible way. He said that in his plan, local governments would have the option of pursuing local funding. He stated that it would also include a redistribution of existing funding.
In response to Mr. Olney’s request, Mr. Davis explained that he proposes taking the current MPO’s and redirecting them over broader geographic areas and giving those regions planning, funding and implementation authority. He stated that projects which cross over different regions would fall under the jurisdiction of a statewide entity which would ensure connectivity. Mr. Shipman suggested that connectivity is the real issue. He said that an argument could be made that the entire system needs to be connected and that local authority would make that difficult to ensure. He noted that regional priorities may not match the state’s priorities. Mr. Davis explained that the state highways would remain under the state’s jurisdiction. Mr. Shipman expressed his concern that they would get in a situation where they have to turn to courts and arbitration to make ultimate transportation decisions. Mr. Davis disagreed stating that, because state highways would remain under the state’s jurisdiction, arbitration would only come into play where regional projects that cross boundaries do not coordinate with each other.
Mr. Radicke noted that ADOT’s credibility has improved dramatically over the past few years. Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Radicke what he would recommend in order to speed up the process. Mr. Radicke said that the Legislature needs to appropriately fund the departments so that they can retain qualified staff. He stated that giving large projects to consultants cuts into the timeframe. He said that it is a technical and manpower question more so than a policy issue. He said that, while they might not be able to work much faster, they could work more efficiently if they used their own people. Mr. Maguire stated that low salaries are a problem that exists in all technical fields and in every state agency. Mr. Radicke stated that the problem is that a change would take legislative action. Ms. Cornelio suggested that that should be one of the recommendations put forth by the committee. She also suggested that the Committee strongly recommend giving districts more power.
Mr. Maguire suggested they discuss how districts operate and different ways to regionalize the system at the next meeting.
Mr. Maguire stated that primacy for a project should be appropriate to its magnitude. He said that state level projects should be under the state’s authority, whereas, local projects should be locally controlled. He suggested that that would resolve connectivity problems while giving regions control over their roads of significance.
Mr. Shipman asked if the current system is adequate or where it might need to be improved. Mr. Maguire explained that one problem is that radically different levels of service demand on state highways forces disparate priorities to compete for funding. He suggested that city and county roads that serve as regional transportation facilities have completely arbitrary allocations. He said that ownership of roads has nothing to do with their classification, thereby creating the connectivity problem.
Mr. Shipman noted that the federal government broke funding up into several pots. He said that the state’s distribution system has been formulated and questioned whether they should move away from that system into a system that takes a TEA21 approach. Mr. Maguire said that if the functional purpose of roads are not realigned with ownership, inappropriate competition would continue to exist. Mr. Shipman noted that more and more investment is taken up in maintenance of the system already in place. Mr. Maguire stated that, even if they changed the mechanism by which funds are distributed, there would still be inconsistent connectivity. He explained that a correctly structured system internalizes incentives and, absent internal incentives, the state needs external regulations. He suggested the current system does not function well because it has a single decision making body comparing dramatically different projects. He suggested they figure out how to get similar projects under the same decision making venue and with the right funding. Mr. Shipman suggested the formula approach they currently have perpetuates the problem. Mr. Maguire disagreed, explaining that it perpetuates the existing jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Shipman suggested that another option would be to use a programmatic approach. Mr. Maguire stated that he would argue that a residential street is a local road, whereas a major arterial is regional. He said that the formula says that, between jurisdictions, the level of funding is not disparate, noting, however, that in both cases the jurisdictions have fundamentally disparate decisions to make. He said that the same arguments applicable at the state level can be applied at the local level.
Ms. Cornelio stated the Committee should not be discussing funds because the real issue is how to deal with inconsistencies between regions. Mr. Maguire stated that decisions are not being made at an appropriate level and the question before the committee is how to achieve realignments. Ms. Cornelio asked Mr. Maguire if he is suggesting they create an entity that acts as an arbitrator. Mr. Maguire agreed. Mr. Olney suggested the ideal solution would be to have cities work out their own solution.
Mr. Radicke pointed out that they need to consider the people who live on the roads.
Mr. Shipman asked if the way political or planning systems are set up causes problems. Mr. Radicke stated that some of the rural counties do not have necessary infrastructure, therefore are not on a level playing field with metropolitan areas. He agreed with Ms. Cornelio that District Engineers need more help, noting that they have approved on-call consultants to assist them. He noted that they are also looking at redistricting District Engineers. Mr. Shipman asked if the lack of resources is a problem for management. Mr. Radicke stated that it is, pointing out that the districts are large. He explained that the districts were set up the way they were because of maintenance and road district equipment resources.
Mr. Carlson suggested the committee review the Planning and Programming Committee’s discussions regarding roads with regional significance. He explained that the Planning and Programming Committee determined they need to develop significant corridors to create an efficient system. He said that the Governance Committee’s charge is to determine who should oversee those corridors. He suggested they create a model of a state organization based on previous studies conducted by Mr. Reed.
Mr. Olney stated that Arizona cannot be the only state dealing with these issues and suggested they look into what other states are doing. Mr. Maguire agreed that several states are looking for similar answers and are hoping that Arizona may have them.
Mr. Maguire offered to work up some recommendations for consideration at the next meeting. Ms. Cornelio expressed her opinion that additional funding for ADOT staff and giving districts more authority should be included as Committee recommendations.
Ms. Cornelio asked if there is consensus that state highways should remain under the state’s authority, but that the state should actively support the turnback program. Mr. Maguire said that they really need to develop an alternative route for state traffic that does not rely on main streets in small towns. Mr. Shipman asked if there is a consensus that all local streets should be considered local. Mr. Carlson noted that there are federal classifications for local streets with which the state should probably be consistent. Mr. Maguire disagreed, stating that the federal government’s methodology does not work. He suggested they need to look at traffic counts to determine a street’s classification. He cautioned against giving all arterial streets the same amount because arterials in one area may need more or less than others.
Mr. Shipman said that there are only two jurisdictions, local and state. Mr. Maguire suggested county authority be redistributed and expressed his opinion that it would be worth examining reconfiguring districts at the state level to align with regional districts.
Mr. Maguire noted that conversations in the past three or four meetings have followed the matrix. Ms. Cornelio stated she would like to review what other committees have discussed in terms of roads with regional significance.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Maguire to come back to the next meeting with different options outlined for discussion. Mr. Maguire said that they first need to define what the Committee is trying to accomplish and what type of organizational structure would help them achieve those goals. He said that they should then look at whether any structures already in place might fit their needs.
Mr. Davis stated that the next meeting is scheduled for the first week in November. Mr. Maguire said he would send his report out prior to that meeting for review.
Call to the Public
Mr. Warren Wilks stated he has investigated all types of public transportation. He said he has a lot of good ideas and information he would like to further discuss with Committee members. He stated that Arizona has more potential than any other state, however, is missing its opportunities. Mr. Davis suggested Mr. Wilks attend the next full task force meeting and submit his information in writing.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
