MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
OF THE
GOVERNANCE AND
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS COMMITTEES
9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 23, 1999
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance and Planning and Programming Process Committees met in official session for a Joint Meeting at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 23, 1999, with Chairpersons Kurt Davis (GOV) and Kevin Olson (P&PP) presiding. Other Committee members present were Lisa Atkins, Diane McCarthy, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Patrick Carlin, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Sheldon Miller, Dave Olney, Mary Peters, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo and Jim Shipman. Others present were Stephanie Bondeson, John Carlson, Matt Carpenter, Bonnie Glass, Alan Maguire, Jennifer Macdonald, and Mary Lynn Tischer.
Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order and welcomed those present.
Acceptance of Minutes
Mr. Davis noted that Mr. Blue Crowley had requested that his comments in the minutes be amended. He indicated that the changes would be made in the final version. A motion to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1999 Governance Committee meeting, as amended, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
A motion to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1999 Planning & Programming Process Committee meeting, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Discussion of Committee Issues
Mr. Olson outlined the format for the roundtable discussion. The participants had been presented a discussion outline prior to the meeting. The first question to be discussed was: “What organizational structures and procedures can be used to balance the statewide system priorities with local/regional priorities?”
Mr. Browning commented that what works for surface transportation may not work for aviation. He suggested that the committees consider aviation at a later date. He explained that aviation and surface transportation should be dealt with separately because of specific considerations unique to aviation transportation. The very different issues involved with the two modes of transportation need to be recognized. He felt that there does need to be a linkage between the two forms of transportation. He suggested the boundary of the questions today be restricted to surface transportation with the hope of moving forward. He suggested that aviation be put on a separate agenda. Mr. Davis said that aviation would be addressed at the November 4 meeting. Mr. Browning suggested that the issue of air space be put on that agenda and that a representative from the FAA be invited to speak. He felt this would give the committee members some appreciation from a time and distance perspective.
Ms. Cornelio suggested that a representative of the State Transportation Board sitting on the regulatory boards helps with respect to the organizational structures. She wondered if that same representation would be appropriate on the smaller COGs and MPOs. Ms. Peters indicated that all MPOs have representation from the State Transportation Board. Ms. Cornelio asked how the airport authorities link with the ADOT process. Ms. Peters indicated that the airport authorities are not part of the ADOT process and that the different structures do not lend themselves to a co-mingling of processes.
Mr. Carlin spoke to the make-up of the State Transportation Board, noting that not all counties are represented sufficiently. He asked if the members spend enough time in each county to adequately understand the needs. He asked if the committee should look at a 15-member board. He added that the State Community College Board is built around a country structure and works well. He asked what the negatives are for expanding the board.
Mr. Radicke said he has been on the board for 20 months, and he has spent quite a bit of time in all of the counties he represents. He has found the time to do what needs to be done to take care of his area. Ms. Peters added that she encourages the members to work closely with the counties they represent, and the COGs and MPOs provide opportunities for board members to interact with those organizations. ADOT also requires the district engineers to maintain close interaction with the board member for their areas.
Mr. Bivens noted that the district engineers’ areas are not consistent with the State Transportation Board or the COGs. He has researched the role of the State Transportation Board and doesn’t see any negatives with a 15-member board. He referred to the dissatisfaction in the Valley with regard to adequate representation. Alternatively, he would hate to see the State Transportation Board become divisive, which might happen if they shifted away from the statewide role each member currently plays. He stated that the committee needs to be concerned with adequate representative for each jurisdiction, and the issue needs to be examined carefully.
Mr. Davis said he would reverse the question to put more of an emphasis on balancing local systems with the statewide system. He would like to give counties the authorities to make decisions at the county level and have the state role be one of providing planning services. He would have the State Transportation Board act as a court of appeals for conflicting plans.
Mr. Bivens felt this was an interesting idea worthy of exploration. His major concern would be the amount of attention given to planning at the local and state level. He can’t envision the counties maintaining the interstate system. He would applaud the concept of an equal playing field, i.e. making the sophisticated models used by MAG and PAG available to all counties. He felt the state would be better off if the same resources were available to all counties. The plans that would be created in the counties would then be synthesized into a state plan.
Ms. Peters agreed that there is a lot of value in local control, but there are important statewide planning needs, i.e. I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson and the CANAMEX Corridor. The state needs to have state planning goals based on input from the local governments. She agreed that the issue of counties having inadequate resources/capabilities to create local plans is important. She agreed with the need to address aviation separately, but the committees do need to look at aviation in terms of meeting transportation demand.
Mr. Chaco emphasized that currently the tribal governments have no representation in the transportation planning system. The Navajo position is that they deal directly with the state and federal government. There needs to be a mechanism to address their needs. He would like to see a State Transportation Board member for the Indian tribes.
Mr. Davis said that while he understands the need for a statewide plan and understands the role of ADOT, in the overall system most people don’t know who is responsible for implementing transportation plans. It would help if the country was responsible. In a county-run system, Native American representation would be absolutely necessary. He believes that a system closest to the people would be most effective.
Mr. Olson agreed with Mr. Davis with respect to accountability, but he is not sure the county is the place to lay the responsibility for accountability.
Mr. Carlin asked how local input ever gets back to the State Transportation Board. He finds it difficult to understand how one board member can cover three or four counties. Mr. Radicke responded that the members do get comments from district meetings. He suggested that the Governance Committee determine the real problem with the current system and fix that, not totally re-engineer the system.
Mr. Miller described how Graham County uses the county system, noting that coordination through the district engineer is very important. He described their annual meeting on transportation issues. They get involved in the process of selecting their State Transportation Board member in an effort to achieve continuity in projects. Their system works well without controlling the money or implementation schedule.
Mr. Redondo expressed concern with expanding the State Transportation Board in that members from individual counties would be pushing specific projects from their area and not serving in a statesman role as they do currently. He stated that the board members are more objective than they are given credit for. To him the key is a better prioritization process and uniform criteria for project selection. Mr. Radicke agreed with Mr. Redondo and emphasized that the current system works well.
Mr. Maguire summarized the key points made by the committee members.
Presentation of Survey on State Transportation Policy Boards
Ms. Glass reviewed the methodology used to perform the survey and summarized the results, which had been provided to the committee members prior to the meeting. She explained how the board members in the various states are appointed, how the department director is appointed, the decision-making powers of the boards, the public input processes, joint meetings with local transportation agencies, bonding authority, contract approval/award powers, allocation of resources and some of the unique features. She stated that the majority of the boards are policy-making bodies, and the majority have final approval for their state transportation plans and state transportation improvement programs.
Ms. Glass indicated that some state transportation boards deal with aviation and some do not. Most at least have an aviation advisory board. Most boards say they are intermodal. Ms. Peters noted that Arizona is required to have two members with aviation experience. Mr. Carlson stated that this requirement was inadvertently eliminated in SB 1201, but this error will be corrected.
Presentation of Survey on State Planning and Prioritization Processes
Ms. Glass explained that the objective of the planning and prioritization process survey would be to determine the methods used by transportation commissions/boards in planning and programming decisions. The survey is still in progress. She stated that she is encountering variance in resource allocation practices. Mr. Olson suggested that Ms. Glass survey the larger COGs and MPOs in larger states such as California.
Discussion of Committee Issues
The second question to be discussed was: “How can we ensure that citizens/taxpayers and customer priorities are reflected in the allocation and prioritization of transportation expenditures?”
Mr. Davis suggested that citizen priorities are not reflected unless decisions are made at the local level.
Mr. Radicke stressed the need to focus on the entire state, not only where the people and the money are.
Ms. Peters suggested that there is room for improvement on the job ADOT does with respect to public meetings. She said that Pima County does an excellent job and has won national awards on their public participation process. She said that she would like to replicate Pima County’s process.
Ms. Cornelio expanded on the description of Pima County’s efforts. She said that if ADOT wants to truly hear from the public they need to totally change their public involvement process.
Mr. Redondo added that the business community embraced the efforts as well, and it was interesting that there was very little controversy once the plan was adopted. He agreed with the need to have a statesman mentality. He believes that the agency cannot only focus on congestion mitigation.
Mr. Olson said he has never heard a Maricopa County resident call for 100% return on the dollars generated in the country. They too are interested in balance. He requested that the committees be given a presentation by PAG on this issue.
Mr. Bivens suggested that this goes back to the issue of accountability. The state needs to be crystal clear as to who has decision-making responsibility.
Mr. Olney suggested that it is a grave mistake to exclude the public from discussion of transportation issues. He said that accessibility is also key to public involvement. He discussed the importance of public education and communicating the opportunities to provide input.
Ms. Peters explained that part of the Casa Grande Resolution talked about going out to the public in every county. On the other hand, it is important not to move the focus from policies to specific projects.
The third question to be discussed was” “What is the proper role and responsibilities of each of the various governments involved in the transportation system? How should they be coordinated?”
It was suggested by Mr. Olney that the state look at the vision of its transportation system 30 years from now and work backwards.
Dr. Tischer, involved in the development of TEA 21, explained that the intent was to find a way through the various interest groups. They attempted to streamline the planning requirements. She offered to go through the points of law. Ms. Peters said that it is not the intent of the federal government to be prescriptive. Dr. Tischer added that TEA 21 prescribes a process but does not dictate the outcome.
Mr. Browning asked ADOT and the Task Force for a set of parameters that say what we are planning for, i.e. how will the people travel in the future? He reminded Mr. Maguire that he was going to gather data in that regard. He also asked if people perceive a disconnect between the planning process and execution. He feels this clouds the issue of accountability. He suggested that the state needs to look at planning with an eye on results, so there is congruent accountability in the system.
Ms. Cornelio suggested that the process needs to be brought closer to the people, but she doesn’t believe that the counties are the best place to facilitate the suggestion. She would like to see the authority of the district engineers expanded in terms of planning and public input. She encouraged staff to research the comments/vision of a Mr. Steve Lockwood at the Arizona Town Hall.
Ms. Peters described the San Diego Regional Authority and compared their authority and jurisdiction to that of the state. She offered to do more research on how well the arrangement works.
Mr. Redondo agreed that the state needs a vision and that it should begin with the end in mind. He feels that the state is now more reactive than proactive. He understands the limitation of resources reinforces the problem.
Mr. Davis encouraged the state to create a process that removes the straps that stop communities from doing what they want to do. He feels that the problem with a vision is the inability of people to look at the whole state and the future of their communities.
Mr. Bivens believes that the Task Force has an obligation to create a vision in light of the fact that projected growth is 3.7 million by the year 2020. The population is expected to double again by 2050. He emphasized the need to figure out what needs to be done and make some major policy decisions. He feels that the state has done a poor job of articulating the transportation needs. The state needs to get a handle on what the real needs are and justify them to the legislature.
Ms. Peters suggested that policy input should begin at the local government level, although common law must prevail, which means that one jurisdiction cannot take action that will negatively affect another jurisdiction, the region or the state. Policies need to also take into account regional and statewide goals and impacts. She asked Mr. Maguire to provide the committee members with the Town Hall document on diversity. She suggested that the answer to the transportation problems in the state is a multi-step process: 1) begin with the creation of a vision, 2) define policy necessary to achieve the vision, 3) establish performance objectives for implementation of the policy, 4) prioritize projects based on the performance objectives, and 5) implementation and accountability. She stressed the need to define policy that will fulfill the vision.
Mr. Redondo called for an adjustment to the planning and programming process that will move projects forward quicker. In today’s system, a project could be obsolete before construction ever begins. He feels this is a major problem.
Mr. Davis suggested that counties are the place for planning, decision-making and implementation, and they need to be accountable. He said they should decide how and what model to use. In his opinion, the best statesman is an accountable one. The current system does not require quick accountability. He noted that the citizens can remove a county official if they are not satisfied, and there is not that same ability in the current system. He does not feel this is a rural versus urban issue at all.
Mr. Olney agreed that a one-size system does not fit all and that accountability is essential.
Mr. Browning commented that the difficulty with accountability is the number of players in the equation. He personally is not sure of the number of hoops it takes for a project to go from concept to reality. He believes that minimizing the number of agencies/entities that have a vote in the process will expedite the time it takes to complete a project. He feels that long-term visioning makes a lot of sense. He questioned how the state will deal with transportation issues when it gets to five million people.
Mr. Redondo reminded all of the need to be sensitive to the mandates on planning organizations, i.e. air quality and the impact on transportation planning.
Mr. Maguire summarized the key points made by the committee members. He said that he would structure a presentation/discussion on transportation as it relates to federal law. He will put together a panel presentation on different perspectives to get a sense of a long-term vision. He will facilitate the Task Force looking at an effective model from another state. He suggested that staff may need to do case studies on several models.
Ms. Macdonald explained that Congress mandated a study by the University of Denver on the best practices issue. They have conducted site visits. She suggested it may be beneficial for the committees to get a briefing on the study. She added that she has learned that Texas is a state where the majority believe that the transportation planning system works well.
The fourth question to be considered by the committee members was: “What oversight/policy boards should be established to ensure the proper continued functioning of the transportation system? How should any such boards be composed?”
Mr. Browning commented that the wording of this question itself scares him. He felt that better questions might be: What is the current and future need? What structure is needed to make the system work? What oversight/policy board should be eliminated to make the system work more effectively?
Ms. Peters compared ADOT to the military, which is geared to efficiency. She cited examples of how ADOT has gotten projects done expeditiously when it was essential, i.e. the replacement of the Gila River Bridge. She would like to see the agency operate this efficiently all the time.
Mr. Browning stated that federal mandates normally don’t cover the mechanism for meeting those mandates. He feels that the MPO may or may not be the best model. He recommended that the committee members not presuppose that the existing system is the best way to do things.
Ms. Peters suggested that recommendations from the committee should focus on the outcome and the best process for getting there. She noted the atmosphere of mistrust that exists today and the need to eliminate it. She suggested that the state, counties and municipalities take advantage of economies of scale, i.e. the current snow removal process. Mr. Davis agreed with the caveat that a decision be made as to who can best do the job most efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Bivens recommended the use of incentives in the process to force coordination between jurisdictions on projects for the common good of the public.
The group next discussed question five: “What is the proper role of the state in establishing standards and criteria for the transportation system within all of Arizona.”
Mr. Bivens suggested that the state has an obligation to set standards to ensure consistency and safety.
Ms. McCarthy raised another important issue, that being schools and transportation, which are not included in anyone’s plan. Another issue is the transportation money in the Welfare to Work program. She felt strongly that all issues need to be integrated at the state level.
Ms. Cornelio wished to echo Mr. Bivens’ comment but added that the standards must be based on public/local jurisdiction input.
Ms. Peters said that the process needs to be consistent and cooperative to ensure the safety of the public.
Mr. Bivens noted that there are cases where the state has to be dictatorial, i.e. safety. Standards need to be established and clear criteria set for allocation of funds. The state then needs to accept the accountability for living by those rules. He suggested finally that execution of the plan be moved to the lowest jurisdiction possible.
Mr. Davis reiterated his previous comment that ADOT’s role would be to “house” the best practices and provide planning services. They would help jurisdictions understand and implement mandates, and the State Transportation Board would serve in an arbitrative role. He doesn’t believe that only the state can be concerned with safety, as there is a strong concern for safety at the local level. Dollars should be passed through to local entities to expedite the implementation of the plan.
Questions six and seven were combined: “How should local/regional priorities and needs be reflected in the resource allocation/prioritization calculation processes? “What factors should be included in the resource allocation/prioritization calculation processes?”
Mr. Radicke suggested that the state needs to work with counties at the planning and zoning and development stage. Developers need to come to the table with the money to do what needs to be done. He suggested that the state needs to work smarter with counties and developers. The state needs to address how it can raise the money to address its transportation needs.
Mr. Olson suggested adding a block on the individual tax return form to allow contributions to resolve the state’s transportation problems.
Ms. Peters stated that MAG came up with a set of criteria, but some were concerned that it was not applicable in rural areas. She added that it all comes back to performance objectives and down to saying no to local government requests not consistent with the state’s planning goals. There may be cases where a project that is not cost effective is done simply because it contributes to the achievement of the state’s goals. She agreed with the need to somehow determine the amount of transportation funding that is going directly to other programs.
Ms. McCarthy asked staff to provide for the committees’ consideration the criterion that the State of Washington came up with to allocate transportation funds.
Mr. Bivens asked for information on what other states are using for project selection criteria.
Mr. Carlson suggested that staff prepare a case study on a major corridor to demonstrate how the system works from conception to completion, including identification of the federal requirements that impact a project. He suggested a presentation on how meeting federal requirements could be streamlined to shorten project timelines. He also suggested a presentation on the concept of design build. Mr. Olson requested that these presentations be provided to the Planning & Programming Processes Committee. Mr. Bivens requested that the presentations include a summary of what organizations were involved in the process versus those that were required to be involved in the process.
In light of the time, Mr. Olson asked Mr. Maguire to distribute his summary of comments to the members at a later time.
Presentation and Discussion: Arizona Transit Association’s Policy and Planning Recommendations for Arizona
Mr. Jim Dickey, President, Arizona Transit Association, reviewed the goals of the AzTA and discussed how they fit into the work of the Task Force. He provided an overview of the organization, including its membership and board of directors. He assured the committee members that they recognize the challenges before the Task Force and share them. He agreed that the state’s role in setting standards and guidelines is important, but local level input is critical. He discussed the difference between the urban and rural mentality and the diverse needs in the state. He listed four specific issues that need to be addressed in the upcoming session of the State Legislature. He noted that Tempe and Phoenix actively promote school transportation programs. Mr. Dickey highlighted four key points of the State Public Transportation Policy: financing Arizona’s public transportation system; visioning Arizona’s public transportation system; partnering Arizona’s transportation system, and; building Arizona communities—access and mobility. He stated his belief that the issues before the committees are bigger than specific modes of transit.
Mr. Olson asked members of the committees to approach Mr. Dickey with questions after the meeting. He stated that recommendations would be discussed at a later meeting.
Call to the Public
Ms. Carolyn Riedel, a resident of Mesa, stated her opposition to the Williams Gateway Airport. She expressed serious concern with adding more runways at Sky Harbor Terminal 3. She was happy to hear the committees address the need for heightened public involvement in transportation planning. She encouraged the Task Force to get out to the public and gather full input from the public.
Mr. Philip Janes, a resident of Phoenix, submitted written comments for inclusion in the public record. They are attached to the minutes. He stressed the need to publicize the existence of the Task Force, suggestion that no one really knows what the Task Force is doing. He encouraged submission of the meeting’s videotape to the media.
Mr. Blue Crowley, a resident of Phoenix, presented the committee members with excerpts from the Federal Register on the federal regulations on public involvement in the transportation planning process. He noted that the Task Force solicited input only in the early phase, and those sessions were poorly attended. He presented a copy of the RPTA Board of Directors Executive Summary on the subject of amending consultant contracts for the Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT project. He commented on the inconsistencies with respect to the Central Phoenix rail/transit project update.
Closing Remarks
It was announced that the next public input meeting would be held on Monday, September 27 at Deer Valley High School in Glendale.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Planning and Programming Process Chairperson
KURT DAVIS, Governance Chairperson
