MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
OF THE
GOVERNANCE AND
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS COMMITTEES
1:30 p.m., Thursday, October 28, 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 1:30 p.m., Thursday, October 28, 1999, with Chairperson Kevin Olson (P&PP) and Vice Chair Lisa Atkins (GOV) presiding. Other Committee members present were: Cecil Antone, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Patrick Carlin, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Diane McCarthy, 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, Harry Reed and Mary Lynn Tischer.
Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments
Mr. Olson called the meeting to order and welcomed those present. He noted upcoming meetings and a change for the December 2 meeting to December 6. The full task force will meet on Monday, December 13.
Acceptance of Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 1999 Joint Governance Committee and Planning & Programming Process Committee meeting, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Resource Allocation Advisory Committee (RAAC) Agreement Discussion
Mr. Reed presented an overview of the purpose of the committee and their activities over the past few months with respect to the five-year transportation program process. The first four years are basically fixed with the fifth year being flexible. The four major questions for that fifth year are: How much money? Where is it used? What type of projects? How are projects selected? The questions were answered as a result of the Casa Grande Resolves meeting, which set up a process for developing the program and established RAAC. The RAAC membership consists of four ADOT members and one member each from MAG, PAG, YMPO, NACOG and RPTA. Mr. Reed reviewed the funding sources for FY 2005, which total $531 million, and described where the money would be used. He discussed the allocation methodologies, which suggested a 50/50 urban/rural split. RAAC found that Arizona’s transportation needs are greater than available resources; a 20-year statewide transportation plan should be the primary tool for allocation; a review of ADOT’s historical expenditures supports the allocation recommendation; the 13 rural counties need financial support from the urban counties; and if state and federal funds increase materially, the RAAC should review the impact of the changes.
Ms. McCarthy asked if the first four years of the plan allocate funds in a 50/50 split. Mr. Reed answered that the split for that portion of the plan is 62% rural and 38% urban. A 20-yer review shows a 54/46 split.
RAAC recommended the FY 2005 target allocation to be 39% to Maricopa County, 13% to Pima County and 48% to the 13 rural counties. The State Transportation Board adopted the recommendation.
Mr. Bivens asked about the needs versus resources on tribal lands, noting the great unrecognized needs. Mr. Chaco stated that only a limited number of roads on reservations qualify for STP funds.
Mr. Bivens asked if public lands in rural areas were given specific consideration. Ms. Peters answered affirmatively, explaining that this was precisely the basis for the 50/50 split. She explained the purpose and use of the Public Lands Highway Fund.
Discussion of Federal Laws Governing State and Regional Transportation Planning
Dr. Tischer explained the federal requirements on the state’s interstate and national highway system and the impact of those requirements. She briefly explained TEA 21, which basically sets forth how funds are provided to states. TEA 21 identified program categories, allocation formulae and eligible projects. Funding restrictions for CMAQ and STP monies were reviewed. She explained the federal requirements related to MPOs, statewide planning, long range planning, STIPs, metropolitan planning, TMAs, the state’s Transportation Improvement Plan, regionally significant projects, certification of the metropolitan planning process, metropolitan areas in non-attainment, and with respect to other highways such as Indian reservation roads and the Federal Lands Highway Program. Dr. Tischer continued with her presentation with an overview of transit grant funding, the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the state implementation plan for the Clean Air Act, transportation conformity, the formal interagency process related to transportation conformity, and finally the FHWA NEPA process.
Mr. Thorwald asked if the re-designation opportunities available to MPOs apply to COGs. Dr. Tischer answered that there is no statement in Title 23 that uses the term Council of Government.
At the request of Mr. Olson, Dr. Tischer described the new organization created in Georgia. It was developed by Georgia’s governor and is considered an advisory group to the Governor. Mr. Carlson added that he gathered information on the Georgia situation for Governor Hull. They have $700 million in projects that are in jeopardy if they don’t come into conformance.
Mr. Antone commented that the tribes also have to go through the NEPA process, requiring time and money, which poses a very difficult problem. He asked who monitors the STIP and ensures that the process is followed. Dr. Tischer answered that the Secretary of Transportation monitors the process through ADOT. Mr. Antone recommended that more consultation be considered with the tribes. He indicated that the BIA process takes time and absorbs some of the funds available for transportation. There is very little money available for maintenance. The bottom line is that they don’t receive sufficient transportation funding. Ms. Peters explained the impact that TEA 21 had with respect to tribal lands roads. She discussed the effort to bring tribal governments to the table in terms of planning efforts. There are opportunities to provide more consultation. Mr. Radicke added that the State Transportation Board has also made an effort to work more closely with the tribes.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Carlin, Ms. Peters explained the funding source for the $21 million that will be used to construct median cable barriers. She explained the criterion for selecting projects. The retrofit is required only in Maricopa County.
Mr. Bivens inquired as to whether there is guidance under TEA 21 as to when the NEPA process can or should be instituted. Dr. Tischer explained that this is actually quite an issue currently. There is a requirement for streamlining the process in TEA 21, but there is a certain level of uncertainty at the time being about the matter.
Update on Survey of Other States
Ms. Glass summarized the survey methodology as well as the results of her survey: long range state transportation plans are primarily policy oriented; all states meet current federal requirements; and resource allocation varies among the states. She reviewed the relationship between the TIP and STIP in the states surveyed, as well as the reconciliation between regional and statewide plans. Each state is unique in terms of resource allocation, although TEA 21 is the common thread for all state transportation agencies. Very few state legislatures are involved in project selection, and state transportation agencies vary widely in the number and type of project categories. They all have a public participation process, and there is rarely a single point of decision. The most common allocation mechanisms were: state legislature, governor, transportation board, state DOT, federal legislation, TMA and MPO. The research found a distinction between centralized and distributed project selection processes. States often use factors such as capacity, need, and benefit cost analysis formulas to choose projects. Ms. Glass presented a graphic demonstration of a simplified allocation process, comparing Arizona’s process to three other processes. She described the state allocation processes for Virginia, Georgia and Pennsylvania, which were randomly selected. In summary, the survey results showed that there is a general parity in treatment of statewide transportation plans, STIPs, federal requirements and regional plan reconciliation. Resource allocation was found to be a much more complex issue involving many parties.
Mr. Maguire asked the task force members to keep in mind the possible impact a person’s perspective might have had on the survey results, depending upon whom was contacted.
Mr. Radicke asked if any research had been done comparing road miles in different states. Ms. Glass indicated that this information was not requested, but she did look at a few states early on with respect to road miles. Mr. Radicke asked if the percentage of funds returned to states from the federal government was surveyed. It was not; only the process and resource allocation was considered. Dr. Tischer added that TEA 21 helped to more fairly return revenues to states; however, some states receive a greater return because of their ability to generate revenues. She offered to provide more information on this at the request of the Task Force.
Discussion and Possible Adoption of Committee Progress Reports to the Task Force
Mr. Maguire explained the intention of the reports, which will be included in the full Task Force Report in December. He encouraged committee members to submit editorial comments.
A motion was made to accept the Governance Committee Progress Report. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
A motion was made to accept the Planning & Programming Process Committee Progress Report. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
Call to the Public
Mr. Joe Ryan, a resident of Sun City West, presented handouts on governance of Arizona’s transportation system. He feels planning and governance are interrelated. He reviewed his background, specifically noting his work in Ethiopia. His point was that it is possible to operate a profitable transit system. He suggested the creation of a mixed company that would not use federal funds. He explained operational problems consistent with federal support. He compared the cost of operating a vehicle in Arizona to using public transportation. Mr. Ryan suggested that Arizona be looked at as a gateway to the country. He disagreed with MAG’s recommendation for using a 300-passenger trolley car.
Mr. Bill Stevens, representing the Earth Millennium Project, stated that the group was formed in May 1999 and is privately funded. He suggested that funds generated by the CAP be used to fund road improvements. He recommended improvements in public transportation on the Indian reservations. Mr. Stevens recommended the implementation of a “bullet train” line between Phoenix and Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma and Los Angeles. He supports a state-of-the-art light rail system in downtown Phoenix and a dual monorail overhead system serving the Valley from Sun City to Apache Junction. The overhead system would be optimal in that it would not interfere with the existing roadways. He sees the need for unity to address growth. Finally, Mr. Stevens suggested the formation of an Arizona Transit Authority with funding coming from the counties.
Mr. Blue Crowley, a resident of Phoenix, thanked staff for including his documentation with the meeting minutes. He noted the unsuccessful public outreach efforts. He was concerned that the top four employers in the state are not responding to needs relative to transportation. He suggested that parking be restricted to encourage use of public transportation, noting that use of personal vehicles impinges on his right to breathe. He recommended the elimination of the “right turn on red” practice. He suggested that the Governance and Planning and Programming Process committees meet with CTOC. He announced a meeting of the Transit 2000 group. Mr. Crowley requested that he receive documentation prior to each meeting, along with other concerned citizens. He recommended that a tunnel be constructed where I-17 and Grand Avenue intersect and along the Grand Canal as part of the bicycle path. Mr. Crowley concluded his comments expressing appreciation for the committees’ efforts but encouraged them to meet with other transportation groups.
Closing Remarks
There were no closing remarks.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
KEVIN OLSON, Planning and Programming Process Chairperson
LISA ATKINS, Governance Vice Chair
