MINUTES OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, November 4, 1999
Maricopa Association of Governments Office
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a regular meeting at 1:45 p.m., Thursday, November 4, 1999, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other Task Force members present were: Lisa Atkins, Malcolm Barrett, Steve Basila, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Patrick Carlin, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Kurt Davis, Joe Herrick, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Raul Pina, Ingo Radicke, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Jim Simmons, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, and Steve Wheeler.
ADOT staff members present were: Stephanie Bondeson, John Carlson, Matt Carpenter, Alan Maguire, Jennifer Macdonald and John McGee.
Welcome, Opening Comments
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order and thanked those who attended the Joint Meeting with the MAG Regional Council at 11 a.m. He felt the meeting was very helpful.
State Aviation Needs Assessment (SANS 2000)
Mr. Gary Adams, Director, Aeronautics Division, introduced the consultants hired to perform the needs assessment. He noted that this is a process that has been done in the past and was done again, even though it was not statutorily required.
Mr. Rick Bowen, Vice President of Bucher, Willis and Ratliff, discussed his company’s involvement in the SANS 2000 process and identified where they are in the study. He highlighted the goals and objectives, which identified the preliminary needs. Mr. Bowen acknowledged the other firms involved in the study team organization. He explained that the needs study is a system planning effort. He explained the proposed methodology for the study, which will look at the adequacy of the state’s general aviation system to determine the need for new airports. It will look at commercial service airports and activity, health care delivery service areas, business support service areas, and recreational service areas. The consultants will summarize what the needs are based on performance measures and identify possible projects to raise the system to meet objectives.
Mr. Bowen summarized forecasts based on trends in Arizona, that being growth over the next ten years at 30 percent, resulting in a ten year total cost to maintain the existing performance levels of $830 million. To bring the system to minimum design standards would cost an estimated $1.2 billion. Ten year financial resources available to improve the system are $600 million. There is a 20-year unfunded need of between $400 and $900 million. He explained that investing in existing facilities affects the performance of the system. A significant amount of improvement needs to be done over the next 5-10 years.
Mr. Browning requested that the Task Force be provided with the criteria used to determine the estimates as well as the source for the criteria. Mr. Bowen said that the team would also be looking at the adequacy of the criteria. He stated that what was presented was a standard scenario based on FAA criteria.
Mr. Browning asked where the study considers air space. Mr. Bowen answered that it is taken into consideration on the facility performance side of the study. Air space is looked at when locating new airports. There are nine airports that may have capacity problems, and air space is looked at in those cases.
Mr. Bowen confirmed for Mr. Thorwald that the study takes tribal needs into consideration. He stated that unless there is capacity and activity relative to old Air Force bases, they are not part of the study.
At the request of Mr. Simmons, Mr. Bowen reviewed the qualifications of Bucher, Willis and Ratliff. They have been in business for 23 years. They have worked with general aviation since 1984 and in airport planning since 1970. He described his personal experience in ground transportation and aviation.
Ms. Steffey inquired as to whether pollution caused by aircraft was considered. Mr. Bowen confirmed that there is one performance measure that deals with environmental issues. The study did not specifically cover air particulates. Ms. Steffey suggested that there is a "hole" in the study with respect to air quality impacts.
In response to a question by Mr. Radicke, Mr. Bowen recommended that the performance measure for delivery of health care services should be 100%.
At the request of Mr. Davis, Mr. Adams explained the fees attached to passenger travel tickets. He emphasized that Congress has capped the fees to emplanements only at $12 per round-trip ticket, but they are looking at changing that amount. He noted the very cumbersome process to get fees approved by the FAA.
Mr. Bowen explained for Ms. Ralston the standard methodology used for the 2020 projections. He assured the Task Force that the projections are very conservative.
Mr. Harry Wolf explained that air pollution by aircraft is taken into consideration by MAG. He described the aviation air quality model used to assess the impacts of different aviation alternatives.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if there has ever been an attempt by a state to borrow against the Aviation Trust Fund. He asked if this was a potential funding source. Mr. Adams explained that the funds are controlled by Congress and how federal funds are distributed to the state. He felt that the ATF would be a great funding source, but it is locked up to balance the budget.
Small Community Airports Economic Development (SCAED) Program
Ms. Pamela Keidel, Senior Aviation Planner, Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc., reviewed the objectives of the SCAED Program, which has identified $180 million in total development needs over the next five years. She highlighted funding sources, prioritization criteria used to evaluate projects, the project review process, administration of the program and economic benefits of the program. She described the credentials of Wilbur Smith Associates with respect to aviation.
Mr. Carlson explained that the Governor is currently evaluating the program proposal as a component of the General Fund budget. Representative Hart may also be willing to move forward with legislation to implement the program. Dr. Megdal suggested that having specific financial data will be key to the success of the program.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Browning, Ms. Keidel explained that the 50-mile criteria used was based on their effort to focus on areas of the state that could truly benefit from airport development. This study is very different from the study presented previously in that it is truly an economic development opportunity study. Mr. Browning expressed concern with the two studies producing different answers to the same question.
Ms. Manning stated that all communities listed in the program have economic development resources available to them. She recommended that the SCAED projects be coordinated with those efforts already working in the communities. Ms. Keidel explained the outreach efforts with local organizations to assure Ms. Manning that this coordination was done.
Mr. Bowen indicated that the findings of the SCAED study were included in his needs assessment. Mr. Adams explained how the two programs might work together.
Mr. Shultz requested that the total program be broken down to the component level. Mr. Browning emphasized the need to address military aviation needs in the study.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that the SCAED program consider tribal economic development. Mr. Bowen explained that the needs assessment looked at tribal economic development from a business service standpoint. They also looked at any town with a population over 5,000 and found no tribal communities with populations exceeding 5,000.
Mr. Thorwald commented on Arizona’s dependence on tourism in its economy. He suggested that the cost of an airline ticket to travel to smaller communities is an important factor in economic development. He asked how Arizona compares to other states. Ms. Keidel cited a rural air service study and stated that the answer is that the state needs to subsidize service to smaller communities, because the carriers will not reduce fares, and this has a negative economic impact to those communities.
Ms. Keidel confirmed for Dr. Megdal that the program would look at airport access.
Mr. Shultz asked for periodic updates from the Governor’s office and the presenters. Mr. Carlson offered to prepare a report on each tax revenue.
Benefits of Arizona’s Airport System
Ms. Stacy Howard, Western Regional Representative, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, described her association’s membership and presented an overview of general aviation as well as a summary of what is needed to maintain the quality of service being offered now. She listed the critical benefits of Arizona’s airport system, noting that $45 billion is generated by general aviation in the United States. She highlighted the demands upon the airport system, the impact of the size of newer business aircraft, the impact of recent reductions in the program, and the need to create incentive programs for airports for land use planning and zoning to prevent adversarial relationships. Ms. Howard stated that the cost of today’s aircraft dictates the need for hangars as well as improved safety and security systems within those hangars. She emphasized the need for real estate disclosure for residential property surrounding airports and touched upon the distribution of AIP grant money. Ms. Howard stated that rural airports are very dependent upon state aviation funding, and she believes airports are a wise investment of tax dollars.
Report on Phase I of the Public Participation Process
Ms. Anne Warner, Consultant, ACW & Associates, explained her challenge to develop a simple, concise summary of the public input process. She highlighted the key components of her report: identification of key issues raised at the public meetings by site and by committee categories, public meeting facts, and the public’s basic observations with respect to the state’s multi-modal needs. Ms. Warner concluded with a statement that the public anticipates ongoing public input opportunities.
Mr. Shultz commended Ms. Warner on her report and encouraged the Task Force members to thoroughly review and digest the information. He felt the report was extremely helpful in understanding the public comments. He suggested that the Task Force members would do a better job of relating to the public if they review the report.
Dr. Megdal reminded the members of the promises made to the public to communicate the Task Force’s findings with them. She was hopeful that a newsletter would be ready for dissemination by year end.
Mr. Thorwald asked if there was any correlation between public testimony and the size of the community. Ms. Warner said there was not. Mr. Thorwald asked if the Town Hall recommendations could be presented in a similar matrix. Ms. Warner deferred to the co-chairs.
Mr. Shipman inquired as to whether there would be any value in conducting a public poll. Ms. Warner suggested waiting until the end of 2000 to conduct such a poll. At that time the Task Force will have a better sense of what their recommendations will be.
Mr. Bivens commended Ms. Warner on her work. He asked if she would be doing follow-up to the requests of the public and Task Force members. Ms. Warner answered that to some extent she would, and there is a process in place to track requests. Ms. Peters added that ADOT does an annual customer survey and offered to add questions to the survey that might benefit the Task Force.
Update on Hiring of Consultants for the Task Force
Mr. Maguire reported that he is currently advertising for two consultants (needs and analytical) through the RFP process; a third consultant (revenues) will be selected from the on-call list. He expected to have all three on board by mid December. He explained that he was not able to hire all three consultants from the on-call list because the scopes of work are not consistent with the consultants on the list. Dr. Megdal stressed the importance of strictly following procurement guidelines. The scopes of work were to be released to the Task Force within the next few days. A total of approximately 800 firms were to receive the RFP notification. The consultants will be paid on a fixed-fee basis, and there is no performance-based structure. The selection committee will be composed of members of the Task Force and other professionals.
Mr. Simmons noted that the credibility of the Task Force report will depend on part on the credentials of the consultants hired. Mr. Maguire stated that the consultants would report through him to the Task Force.
Mr. Shultz requested that Mr. Maguire mail the RFP to the Task Force members as soon as possible.
Dr. Megdal noted that the Task Force would issue another RFP to hire a consultant to facilitate the next phase of the public participation program.
Discussion on the Development of the Task Force’s Interim Report
Mr. Maguire presented an overview of the proposed report outline. He discussed the schedule for developing and adopting the interim report. A draft was to be completed within the next two weeks for discussion at the December 6 meeting. Final adoption of the interim report would take place at the December 13 meeting.
Mr. Bivens said that he reviewed the reports circulated. He was concerned that the report does not identify what the Task Force plans to do in 2000. He noted that identification of critical issues was not included. Mr. Shultz commented that the next agenda item would answer the question. Ms. Peters agreed that the interim report should include a work plan for the coming year.
Discussion and Possible Adoption of Preliminary Findings
Mr. Maguire presented a draft of the preliminary findings. He encouraged the Task Force members to review the document and forward comments to him by November 12. This would allow staff to get the draft out by mid November. He noted that the report was intended to focus on items that have become self evident through the process.
Mr. Bivens expressed concern with trying to bring three consultants on board within five weeks, feeling it was unrealistic. He stressed the need for quality selections considering the work that needs to be done.
Call to the Public
Ms. Donna Redford expressed appreciation to the Task Force for the work they are doing. She said she was speaking as a citizen who lives in the Tempe flight plain, and she was very concerned that the Task Force is not looking at an alternative to Sky Harbor Airport for reasons such as air quality, traffic congestion and noise.
Ms. Georgia Bagette, Chairman, Mesa Community Alliance, stated that East Valley residents moving near Williams Gateway Airport are not receiving proper disclosure. He was concerned with Mesa, Queen Creek and Gilbert allowing more and more residential development in the area. He suggested that the Task Force recommend to the Governor that she reverse H.B. 2404 and require disclosure about the type of airport as well as aviation easements. She indicated she knew nothing about aviation easements being recorded on her house. She suggested that pollution caused by DC-10s is extremely significant and should be a major consideration.
Mr. Blue Crowley, a resident of Phoenix, commented that his documents submitted at the September 23 Governance and Planning & Programming Committee meetings were not included in Ms. Warner’s summary. He spoke to the need for 24-hour a day, 7-day-a-week bus service, a tunnel under I-17, and funding for heavy rail as a form of transportation. He suggested that MAG has a lack of visioning as it relates to the Valley’s bicycle system. He listed the Vision 2025 meeting dates and times and expressed appreciation for what they have done. He requested that he get meeting packets one week prior to a meeting and that there be more documentation available at the meetings for the public. He reiterated the need for bicycle tunnels at I-17 and the Grand Canal.
Mr. Bill Stevens, representing the Earth Millennium Project, said he feels he is like a check and balance system in the state. He would like to see the Task Force get into the issue of bus transportation in the Phoenix metropolitan area as there are 40,000 families without vehicles in Phoenix alone. He suggested that the state create a state transportation authority and that the Task Force look at bullet trains using existing right of way along I-17 between Nogales and Flagstaff. Mr. Stevens said that the Phoenix metropolitan area needs a dual overhead monorail system over its existing roadways with bus transportation between stops. He suggested that there be one funding source for transportation in Arizona and that it be administered by an Arizona transportation authority. In conclusion, Mr. Stevens suggested that the Task Force help the little guy out.
The Yuma County Airport Authority submitted a written statement emphasizing the point that funding remains the major road block to achieving the goal of a true multi-modal transportation system. The statement referred to the importance of the Aeronautics Grant Program and the critical nature of restoring the full Flight Property Tax to aviation. It was suggested that if funding continues at today’s level, airports across the state would lack sufficient funding to meet minimum FAA safety, security and capacity requirements. The Yuma County Airport Authority believes that transportation infrastructure cannot survive if users continue to be taxed for utilizing transportation systems while those taxes continue to be diverted for other programs. The single message to the Governor should be that the current transportation system in Arizona needs help.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:13 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
