Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, October 24, 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., Thursday, October 24, 2000 with Co-Chairpersons Sharon Megdal, Ph.D. and Martin Shultz presiding. Other members in attendance were Steve Basila, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Paulson Chaco, Kurt Davis, Joe Herrick, Valerie Manning (arrived at 2:20), John Mawhinney, Lt. Governor Narcia, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Ingo Radicke, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Also present were Alan Maguire, John Carlson, Mary Tischer, Jennifer Macdonald and Matt Carpenter.
Welcome, Opening Remarks
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. and let the pledge of allegiance. He addressed the adjustments made to the meeting schedule noting that additional meetings would be held in the fall of 2000 and early 2001 in order to accomplish the goals of the task force. He requested that members give special time and attention to the task at hand and stated that he was looking forward to enthusiastic participation.
Approval of Minutes for August 11, 2000
Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Committee Progress Reports
Mr. Maguire provided an overview of the progress reports from the three subcommittees. He commented on the purpose of the summary format to enhance one’s ability to locate information quickly. He stated that the committees are making good progress towards the development of recommendations.
Mr. Olson, chairperson of the Planning and Programming Process Committee, indicated that they are coming to a consensus recommendation with respect to technology and means of enhancing utilization of existing capabilities, which will be focused on performance-based measures and make a substantial difference in the planning process.
Mr. Davis, chairperson of the Governance Committee, stated that recent meetings have further defined differences. They will consider potential alternatives as a base for discussion over the next two meetings to try to reach a consensus.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if it were possible to have a discussion on regional planning and aspects of regionalization before making a decision. He suggested the committee examine strategies for improving coordination between jurisdictions. It was noted by Dr. Megdal that this would be discussed in conjunction with discussions on land use planning in November.
Mr. Maguire said that Governance Committee would try to present two alternative structures, centralized and de-centralized. He mentioned a need for an increased nexus between design, operations and maintenance and funding. The models that will be presented will address accountability and a better integration of local driver needs and the need for statewide coordination of the system.
Mr. Maguire summarized the progress in the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee and the work of the consultants, whose efforts are focused on two issues: 10 improving the overall financial management of the system, and 2) the need to standardize transportation data at the collection and planning stages. Mr. Mawhinney added that the committee is awaiting a final revenue assessment report by the consultant. Their goal is to present to the Governor a long-range plan for a multi-modal system, one which will have immediate and obvious implementation benefits.
Mr. Shultz confirmed that everyone understood what the committee would receive from the consultants. He stated that the success of the task force would be reliant upon the data developed. He requested that staff provide more information on the standardization of the transportation data, commentary on the results from Booz Allen on the process, and characterization of the data that would be presented to the committee and task force from Wilbur Smith.
Mr. Maguire responded with an indication that the consultants found substantial differences in reporting and analysis of needs and resources, which created a problem when trying to combine the information. With respect to the Booz Allen results, Mr. Maguire expressed concern with the duplication of projects uncovered in the verification exercise. He described the attempt to normalize the data in various plans by comparing the data to their national and international data. The result should lend a tremendous amount of comfort to the task force. They are now in the process of finalizing the database and hope to be able to present statistical information in early November. Mr. Maguire reviewed the initial charge to Wilbur Smith and their progress and current goals with respect to their responsibility. They are currently developing revenue alternatives for consideration by the task force.
Mr. Mawhinney stated that the result of the consultants’ reports would not be the recommended plan. It will be up to the task force to pick and choose and come up with a long-term plan.
Mr. Thorwald asked if alternative revenue sources are still being considered. Mr. Maguire answered that some are and some are not. He added that the consultants are continuing to gather data.
Dr. Megdal stressed the importance of considering all issues in the committee process, even if additional meetings are necessary. Additionally, she asked that the maintenance of the task force website be continued. Ms. Peters said that she would make sure it was kept up to date.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that the task force reevaluate the impact of the alternative fuel situation on the state. Mr. Carlson indicated that he had asked Wilbur Smith to look at estimated impacts.
Presentations on Tribal Transportation Issues
Mr. Shultz introduced the tribal representatives.
Ms. Alberta Tippeconnic, Assistant Director, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA), spoke of the importance of the transportation system on tribal lands, which make up one-third of the state of Arizona. She touched on the background of the tribal governments and described the ITCA, its goals and objectives, history and make-up. She stated that tribal lands comprise 27% of Arizona land and 6% of its total population. There are 21 tribes in Arizona, and 19 belong to ITCA. She reviewed the locations of the tribes and discussed the rural characteristics of tribal lands. She reported that there are five cultural groups of Indian tribes in Arizona, as identified by anthropologists. She stated that it is important to understand the tribal relationship with the federal government and the laws and policies established many years ago.
To that end, Mr. Linus Everling Senior Counsel, Gila River Indian Community, provided an in-depth presentation on the history of the federal/tribal relationships, dating back to the 17th Century. He provided an overview of the Doctrine of International Law and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Mr. Everling enumerated the milestones of the federal/tribal relationship, discussing the principles of ach. He discussed the history of non-Indian settlement in Arizona, the Enabling Act of June 20, 1910 and is reflection in the Arizona Constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court decision recognizing Indians as citizens of Arizona, tribal governments’ jurisdiction and the future of tribal governments.
Mr. Ben Nuvamsa Superintendent, Fort Apache Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, presented an overview of the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) Program. He covered IRR statutory authority, the purpose of the program, eligible IRR activities, the IRR system, the definition of the BIA road system and BIA road system funding sources and funding authorizations from 1997 through 2003. Mr. Nuvamsa highlighted the annual adjustments to this funding, the previous funding formula for the program and the current funding formula mandated by TEA-21. He continued with a description of the BIA road system operation, the road system inventory and road surface types in Arizona, the IRR Bridge Program, and the BIA maintenance program and maintenance needs.
Dr. Greg Saxe, Planner Supervisor, Tohono O’Odham Nation, presented a map of the Tohono O’Odham nation, the second largest Native American nation in the U.S. He noted that it is served by only one state highway. He commented on the unique governance structure and the problems they encounter serving the population from a transportation standpoint. He highlighted the design deficiencies of their road system, the associated high accident severity and the cost of the deficiencies to the government. Dr. Saxe stressed consultation and coordination requirements and the fact that transportation issues cross geopolitical boundaries. He concluded by stating that he is looking forward to participating as a full partner with the Vision 21 Task Force.
Lt. Governor Richard Narcia, Gila River Indian Community, called for a focus on consultation between government jurisdictions. He referred to the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994 requiring government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribal Governments. He also highlighted the Executive Order 13084 of May 14, 1998, which required the same consultation and coordination. He reminded the task force members that the Department of Transportation policies also require consultation with tribal governments. Lt. Governor Narcia noted numerous documents requiring government entities to work together and expressed a strong desire to partner with the state to better use transportation funds.
With time running short, Mr. Chaco requested that he be allowed to make a presentation on the Navajo Nation to the committees.
Task Force Discussion of Tribal Transportation Issues
In response to a question from Mr. Thorwald, Mr. Nuvamsa explained that BIA transportation funds go directly to the tribes and are distributed based on a relative need form and TIP. The current lack of a distribution formula has had a major impact on tribal governments. Mr. Chaco added that the Navajo Nation currently receive $75 million in transportation funding.
Mr. Shultz emphasized that the task force is committed to further input and dialog with the tribal governments. The task force recognizes the sovereignty and the need for partnership. He suggested that the "devil is in the details" of the relationship. He asked that the committees address the IRR plan at the committee level, the total funding mechanism from the federal government and additional economic activities. He asked the tribal governments how much they intend to put into the area of economic development that is their transportation system. He asked what their total revenue stream is and how much local tribal investment there would be in the transportation system. Mr. Nuvamsa explained that the tribes rely on their economic activities to carry out basic government services and noted that they have little to no taxation to depend upon. Mr. Chaco added that the ITCA presentation dos not include the Navajo Nation figures, and he will share those at the committee level.
Presentations on Aviation Related Issues
Mr. Mike Johnson, Arizona Airports Association, provided an overview of the history of the association, a review of the important issues in aviation in Arizona, national air travel statistics, and Arizona air travel statistics. He discussed aviation as a component of a multi-modal system in Arizona and stated that aviation represents a sound investment in Arizona. He commented on the economic impact of aviation and explained the use of aviation funds. Mr. Johnson presented a cash flow chart for the ADOT Airport Development Program, noting the loss due to the diversion of 50 percent of the Flight Property Tax to the General Fund. He reviewed the unfunded needs that were created as a result of this diversion and the result to the program. He emphasized that critical maintenance projects were deferred to cancelled and provided examples of runway deterioration situations. Mr. Johnson highlighted the Air 21 bill, the potential results of its policies and explained why it would not work for all airports. He requested that the task force recommend that the Flight Property Tax be removed from the budget, which will give the legislature the opportunity to reverse its previous diversion action. He recommended that the task force’s final report include language outlining the system wide airport needs, encouragement to return the Flight Property Tax, and the consequences of not doing so.
General Browning asked what the rationale was for the change in airport funding in 1997. Mr. Johnson explained his understanding that the funds were needed to cope with the expected Y2K problem, and they have pursued its return tirelessly. General Browning asked why the Flight Property Tax fund was such an attractive target. Mr. Johnson explained that the process that was used for funding projects caused a rapid increase in the fund balance; the funds were then perceived by the legislature as unnecessary if they weren’t being used in a timely manner. Mr. Johnson explained their efforts to speed up the grant process and put projects into construction more expeditiously. He noted that many things have been implemented to better guide the system.
General Browning asked if there have been any efforts to influence Arizona’s portion of Air 21. Mr. Johnson answered that there had not been any efforts to his knowledge, but he believed the funds would go to larger commercial airports.
Ms. Steffey asked if data was available to show what moneys are received by airports as compared to expenses. She also asked whether the airports were owned privately or publicly. Mr. Johnson explained that the majority of the airports in Arizona are publicly owned. He indicated that the financial information on airports is gathered and reported by ADOT. He discussed the competitive process for funding.
Mr. Daniel Burkhart, National Business Aviation Association, Inc., discussed the history of the association, its mission and its membership. He compared the aviation system to the Phoenix transportation system and discussed the impact of one system on the entire U.S. air system. With respect to Arizona’s airports, Mr. Burkhart emphasized the need to manage the airports and enumerated the airport needs and substantial impact on businesses. Mr. Burkhart reviewed U.S. business aviation trends, aviation industry growth, business aviation forecasts, the need for full access for business aviation, and the need to protect airports from encroachment. Mr. Burkhart stated that business aviation means business and economic development. He quoted a mayor from the Midwest as saying, "Your airport is your most important main street—please take care of it."
Ms. Stacy Howard, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, gave a presentation on Arizona Airports—Access to America. Her presentation described Arizona’s airports as on-ramps to the nation’s air transportation system. She highlighted the importance of business support services, access to emergency services, and enhanced medical services. She pointed out that investment in Arizona’s airport system provides high economic and humanitarian returns. She stated that airports need more than pavement; they need land use planning, infrastructure, safety and security. In conclusion, Ms. Howard stated that aviation is not a special interest; airports are everyone’s business.
Mr. Michael Hemesath, City of Sierra Vista, indicated that Sierra Vista has one of two joint use airports in the state in that it is used by the public and the Army. He discussed the impact of the Flight Property Tax diversion on the Sierra Vista Airport, noting that they received no funding this year in the five-year program as opposed to the $700,000 to $800,000 they previously received in a typical year. He asked that the task force consider emphasizing the needs for assistance to small rural airports in its final report to the governor.
Update on Aviation Needs Study
This item was deferred and will be presented at the committee level.
Task Force Discussion of Aviation Issues
Mr. Johnson clarified for Mr. Shipman that it is a budget issue to restore the Flight Property Tax, and strong support is needed to remove the funds from the budget. Ms. Peters felt that it would take a change in the statutes as well as a budget action to restore the tax. Mr. Mawhinney agreed that it is timely for the task force to once again make the recommendation to restore the Flight Property Tax. He referred to a SCAED report seen earlier and a recommendation it contained with respect to investments in rural area airports to allow them to participate in economic development opportunities. He asked the co-chairs to write a strong recommendation to the Governor immediately to restore the Flight Property Tax. Task force members discussed the timing of the recommendation from the task force to the Governor. Mr. Shultz felt that an action item on the recommendation was necessary, and since it was not noticed on the agenda, he felt the action would not be appropriate. He agreed that the co-chairs could write a letter reflecting the direction of the task force. He asked that rural economic development experts focus on this issue to make the case to the legislature and the appropriations committee.
General Browning expressed his hope that this not be the last discussion of aviation issues. He called for additional discussion at the committee level, where the issue of how the Flight Property Tax and Aviation Fund are spent should be addressed specifically.
Call to the Public
Mr. Warren Wilkes, 2212 S. Periwinkle, Mesa, Arizona, suggested that an improved rail system would solve the state’s transportation problems. He stated that there are corridors that are not being used in the state. He suggested that Williams Gateway Airport has significant potential to benefit the state’s transportation system. He agreed with the efforts of the task force thus far. He said that he was here to sell the use of a vehicle guidance system and additional bicycle paths. He did not want additional freeway lanes until the accident rates are reduced by 25 percent. Mr. Wilkes suggested that modern modes of transportation should be considered for all of Arizona. He recommended that the task force consider another retreat, one held in Surrey, British Columbia, to survey their system, which he felt could readily improve Arizona’s transportation picture.
Prior to adjourning the meeting, Mr. Bivens asked if the task force should address the issue of a new major regional airport given that it takes 20 years to build one. Mr. Johnson stated that the concern about foresight is important and the key to why Phoenix and Tucson both have fine facilities. He suggested that the greater issue is to make sure there is a system in place to maintain and develop airports as needed. He suggested that the state would need to look hard at the "marketing study" issue. He added that Arizona’s airport system is the envy of other states.
Mr. Hemesath stated that the state should look at whether a regional airport would benefit rural airports or put them out of business.
Ms. Howard shared her personal opinion that the state would need to look seriously at a light rail system in conjunction with a regional airport.
Mr. Burkhart stated that there is a call from business aviation to have access to a regional airport, whatever it is, but they are not fighting for a regional airport.
Mr. Gary Adams stated that the issue has been studied three times in the past, and he discussed the history of the eventual development of a regional facility. The last study was very divisive, and no consensus was reached. He felt it was appropriate for the task force to look at the issue to try to meet demand, if the demand can be forecast. He suggested that it be looked at on the 50-year horizon.
Mr. Bivens said that the state needs to look at a totally integrated system, and it needs to improve land access. He asked if the task force charge calls for at least addressing the issue. Mr. Olson felt that the task force’s focus should be on demand and customer needs relative to aviation. General Browning agreed, adding that it would be a gross mistake to look at a regional airport without need/demand data. Dr. Megdal also agreed. Inasmuch as she served on the last regional airport task force, she recounted the issues that were raised and discussed. She felt that the task force should recognize capacity issues in its recommendation but not make a recommendation for a regional airport.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
