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, October 4, 2001 with Chairperson Kurt Davis presiding. Others members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Ingo Radicke, Richard Narcia, Dave Olney, Jim Shipman, and Pricilla Cornelio. Task Force co-chairpersons Marty Shultz and Sharon Medgal were present. Also present were John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor, Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company, Mary Lynne Tischer, Matt Carpenter and Lisa Pendrick.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Chairperson Davis called the meeting to order at approximately 1:38 p.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes from Tuesday, February 13, 2001
Action: A motion to accept the minutes of February 13, 2001 was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Presentation and Review of Task Force Public Input Meetings and Focus Group
Mr. Maguire presented the Report on Transportation Open Houses. He highlighted the public notification of each open house, the format, materials presented and the attendance at the ten open houses conducted in Southern, Central and Northern Arizona over the summer. The demographic findings of those attending the open houses were noted. All comments made at the open houses were captured and categorized; Mr. Maguire touched upon a few of them. Mr. Maguire reviewed the results of the request for transportation priority identification, the transportations system tax increases in rank order, and the five most significant transportation routes.
Mr. Maguire next presented the Qualitative Results Report of the modified focus groups conducted to discuss preliminary Task Force recommendations. Two sessions were held in June, one in Phoenix and one in Tucson. He reviewed the participant selection, methodology and demographics of the 80 participants. The key findings from the focus groups were discussed. They included the top five priorities in terms of transportation improvements, participants’ satisfaction with the current system, key transportation routes, funding preferences, and funding levels.
Mr. Radicke asked if there was a report on the open house focus group session in Globe on August 9th ? Mr. Carlson noted there was a written summary prepared and asked Mr. Carpenter to send a copy of the summary to Mr. Radicke.
Review of Public Task Force Findings/Review of Preliminary Findings Based On Public Input
Mr. Maguire noted that a review was done with each committee and a number of the issues identified in the public comments related directly to the Board’s individual committee recommendations and were taken back to the committees. The three areas identified the most often were land use planning, regional districts and the State Board configuration. Mr. Maguire reviewed the list and asked for the committee’s direction. The Planning and Programming Committee’s recommendation was to add land use planning to the obligations of the Regional Districts.
Mr. Shipman asked when the recommendation for placing land use at a regional level was made and whether there was a recommendation for accomplishing the task. Mr. Maguire stated the committee’s intent was more conceptual. Mr. Shipman acknowledged that regional issues should be handled by a regional governance mechanism, however, the charge given to the Task Force was to deal with the transportation portion and not air quality. He acknowledged that land use planning and transportation planning are difficult to separate. Mr. Maguire noted the consensus was to combine land use and transportation planning. Mr. Shipman asked if it was the Governance Committee’s priority to sort that out. Mr. Maguire said both committees re-forwarded the urban district concept.
Mr. Bivens questioned how a regional transportation agency acquired land use determination responsibility and suggested that the Task Force modify the recommendations. Mr. Davis responded that the survey data was very important and essential to the committee. Mr. Davis stated there were issues more complex than the survey. Mr. Maguire noted the issue would revolve around what portion of the survey related to the issues. Mr. Shipman recalled there was a level of frustration for the committee during discussions in a previous meeting and recalled that the Chairman pointed out the relationship between transportation and land use. Chairman Davis noted there was discussion and recalled a recommendation on the table that the Committee chose to strip out land use planning. Mr. Bivens recalled no final recommendation.
Mr. Carlson referred the committee to the recommendations noted on pages 6 and 7 regarding land use and noted there were specific guidelines, which led to substantial reform. Mr. Bivens noted that the recommendations made by the committee needed to identify plan of payment. Mr. Maguire asked if the committee wanted to broaden the Growing Smarter statutes to have a regional component and whether the committee wanted to outline details in terms of the regional districts. Dr. Medgal clarified that the regional planning entities had the ability to get things built that might be required for something located in a particular area such as a mall, and did not see the connection between that effort and the actual implementation of remediation of the impact. Chairman Davis conceded.
Ms. Cornelio commented she was not comfortable in saying that the Regional Transportation District should perform land use planning. Chairman Davis noted he was comfortable with the recommendations related to land use planning and asked the committee to consider a recommendation that the Growing Smarter statutes be amended to address regional issues.
Action: A motion to recommend amending the Growing Smarter statute to address regional considerations was made by Ms. Cornelius.
There was no second and the discussion continued.
Mr. Davis noted that if the Growing Smarter statutes were changed, the notification would trigger the mitigation. Several members stated they were unclear as to what the Growing Smarter statutes implied. Dr. Tischer noted there seemed to be a consensus that the Growing Smarter legislation should be changed to address and provide intent for regional coordination and consultation and that any mechanism developed with respect to transportation activities would attempt to enforce that. In response to a question by Mr. Bivens, Mr. Maguire agreed to research the issue and return with recommendations for notification.
Urban Transportation Districts
Mr. Maguire presented an update on the urban transportation districts and noted there was a recommendation that dealt with the rotation of the chairman. He outlined the recommendation for the make-up of the State Transportation Board. A recommendation was included which stated the chairman should be rotated annually and at least every third year should come from the largest county. There was also a concern that the composition of the Board would lose its rural strength. Mr. Maguire noted there were several options: change in geographic allocation and set the membership up so that the rural districts remain but remove the county rotation requirement.
Mr. Radicke asked why fix what wasn’t broken and recommended that the Board membership composition remain the same. Ms. Medgal commented there were perceptions of problems with the composition of the Board and efforts to change the composition of Board at the Legislature. She was concerned with what would happen if the committee put forth no recommendation or direction. If the public felt there should be more urban representation, they would find ways to make that happen. She also noted there was an issue of diversity on the Board.
Mr. Maguire noted that the recommendations were to: increase the membership to nine with no more than three from a county with more than one-third population, no more than one from any other county; the member could not serve in any elected position while a Board member; the member would serve a six year term, staggered; chairman must be rotated annually; and at least every 3rd year the chairman must come from the largest county. Chairman Davis noted that the recommendations provided by the committee allowed the Governor maximum flexibility to appoint members with interest or expertise in different forms of transportation, provided an opportunity to deal with the urban and rural appointment methodology and numbers, and opened the door for diversity. Chairman Davis also noted the Board would not be able to please everyone.
A member asked if there was an overwhelming response in opposition to changing the Board composition. Mr. Maguire responded that within the rural community there were overwhelming comments to keep the Board composition intact.
Mr. Narcia reiterated the recommendation and position of the Inter-Tribal Council’s request to include a Native Tribal representative to the Board because of the fact that a large percentage of the State of Arizona was made up of Native American land and a large part of the transportation interstates pass through Indian land. Mr. Maguire noted that the language in the recommendations that focused on skills and expertise would be guidance for the Governor.
Action: A motion to keep the current Board size with a 7-year term and rotation of chairmanship was made by Mr. Radicke and seconded by Ms. Cornelio.
Mr. Radicke commented that the committee should not overlook the public’s input. Chairman Davis noted that the committee came up with a system that protected both urban and rural interests.
Mr. Maguire reviewed the district recommendations. There was a clear sense that the current money mechanisms failed because there wasn’t authority given to implement; there was a need for regional planning with enforcement powers; and land use issues already discussed. Mr. Shipman asked if the comments from rural areas were issues primarily focused on urban areas. Mr. Maguire noted there were comments involving the dislike of urban or rural transportation districts. Mr. Shipman asked if the counties, under separate authority, undertook transportation projects within an incorporated area. Mr. Maguire stated if the district existed and entered into an IGA with the county to carry out its actions, it would be governed by the district laws.
Upon a call for the motion, the motion failed with a vote of 3-4.
Chairman Davis asked if there were other pertinent comments. Mr. Maguire stated that the taxing authority was an issue. The current draft authorized the levy of property taxes, which was inconsistent with all other tax proposals. He suggested the limitation be a transportation excise tax, sales tax or development fee, and remove property taxes. Mr. Maguire recommended clarification of the sales tax restructuring to imitate the Maricopa County excise tax. He also noted there were issues dealing with the transference of ownership, which could be addressed by IGA.
Ms. Cornelio asked what Tucson’s reaction was regarding the transportation district. Mr. Maguire stated that the majority of the Tucson public comments were opposed to the regional district. Ms. Cornelio suggested, based on Tucson public comments, that the language be changed to permissive in areas from 100,000 up to one million population.
Action: A motion was made by Ms. Cornelio and seconded by Mr. Shipman to change the recommendation on Page 13, first paragraph, second sentence, to read: Districts should be established in all urban areas with a central city population in the excess of one million persons. Urban areas with a central city of less than one million persons may create a district with the permission of the State of Transportation Board, The motion passed with a 4-3 vote.
Call to the Public
Mr. Joe Hughes from Phoenix thanked the Board for their time and effort on the above issues. He asked what Tucson’s reaction was to the Board composition and terms. Mr. Maguire stated there were no comments from Tucson on the Board issue.
Ms. Rose Maher from Apache Junction, a teacher in the Chandler Unified School District, stated her concerns centered around mass transit and light rail options. Chairman Davis asked Ms. Maher to review the full preliminary report for recommendations regarding mass transit and light rail.
Mr. Brent Billingsley, transportation professional in Superior, expressed concern regarding governance recommendations and expansion of the Board. He suggested the Board composition remain intact. He was concerned that issues discussed at a Gila County Board of Supervisors meeting were not included in the documentation presented to the Task Force. He also noted concerns with the proposed regional transportation districts, because he envisions the implementation of this concept statewide if effectively implemented in urban areas. He is very much in favor of streamlining the process of working with the various transportation districts (Federal Highways, State Transportation Board, ADOT maintenance/engineering districts and COG districts) and sharing resources. He suggested his regional council would support the concept of ADOT representation on that board.
Action: A motion to reconsider and keep the Transportation Board in its current configuration with a 7-year term and rotation of chairmanship, was made by Chairman Davis and seconded by Mr. Radicke. The motion passed with a 4-2 vote.
Chairman Davis noted that some of the recommendations would be reviewed at the October 16 meeting of the Task Force.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
