Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

OF THE

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

1:30 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 2000

Arizona State Capitol

Executive Tower, Grand Canyon Room

Phoenix, Arizona

The Governance Committee met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 2000, with Chairperson Kurt Davis presiding. Other Committee members present were: Lisa Atkins, Priscilla Cornelio, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke, and Jim Shipman. Task Force members present were: Co-Chairperson Dr. Sharon Megdal and John Bivens. Others present were: Alan Maguire, John Carlson, Mary Lynne Tischer, Jennifer Macdonald, Harry Reed and Matt Carpenter.

Pledge of Allegiance, Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments

Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 1:44 and all joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Acceptance of Minutes for September 21, 2000

Action: A motion to accept the minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Discussion of Alternative Governance Structures

Mr. Maguire explained the proposed discussion format and provided an overview of a document created to compare and contrast the centralized authority versus decentralized authority governance structures. For purposes of discussion, Mr. Maguire presented the decentralized authority structure, while Mr. Reed presented the centralized authority structure. Each addressed how various circumstances might be handled.

Mr. Tom Buick, County Engineer, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, presented yet another governance structure proposal, which included three alternatives. He elaborated on each of the three alternatives, including the funding component of each. He presented a menu of funding opportunities that would be available, some of which are used currently. He emphasized the need to produce a governance structure that would make a difference in the coming decades.

In response to questions from the committee members, Mr. Buick explained that the proposed structures would need to have authority similar to that of the state. He explained that he prepared the alternatives from the perspective of the two metropolitan areas, but he felt that population requirements/thresholds might be offered as an elective option in rural areas. He explained the relationship between the state and regional authorities in his alternatives. It was stated that, with respect to funding decision making, there would need to be new money on the table. He felt it should go into a regional authority. He would propose to maintain the current HURF distribution under Alternative A. Mr. Buick explained the options relating to the composition of the State Transportation Board, as proposed under his scenarios. He confirmed that the alternatives would address all surface transportation modes. He proposed two incremental funding needs relating to roads of regional significance and the infusion of additional moneys into HURF with the distribution remaining the same as it is today. HE stated that the committee needs to be clear on the issue it is trying to solve and the desired outcome. Dr. Megdal commented that she would not want to restrict new revenues to coming through HURF. She stressed the need for clear accountability and lines of responsibility. Chairman Davis suggested that the governance structure should be able to adapt to all forms of revenue generation.

Mr. Radicke expressed concern with respect to the efficiencies of scale of going to a regional system, i.e. hiring separate staffs.

Mr. Maguire suggested that the committee compare Mr. Buick’s Alternative A to the two structures presented by he and Mr. Reed.

Committee members and guests discussed the merits of State Transportation Board members being full-time, paid personnel of the state given the importance of transportation to the State of Arizona. They discussed the fact that only elected officials have taxing authority. They discussed at length the issue of accountability under the various alternatives presented.

Mr. Shipman commented that Alternative A addresses the issue of management, implementation and operations but is light on governance. He asked if it were possible to create enabling legislation to create a district where an entity could accomplish the components of Alternative A. He stressed the need for a level of flexibility to respond to Arizona’s transportation issues, adding that ADOT has been "handcuffed" in the past. He suggested there is a nexus between the policy of the state and the direction to the regional entities and local jurisdictions.

Ms. Cornelio stated her preference for a "tweaked" centralized structure, believing the best way to proceed is to simply improve on the existing system by making it more responsive.

Committee members returned to the discussion on the centralized and decentralized proposals. Mr. Maguire summarized the three concepts being considered. It was decided that the committee members would break into two groups to discuss the centralized and decentralized proposals. The centralized group was comprised of Mr. Radicke, Mr. Bivens and Ms. Cornelio. The decentralized group was comprised of Mr. Olney, Mr. Davis, Mr. Shipman and Ms. Atkins.

Centralized Group Discussion

Ms. Cornelio commented that roads of regional significance are not adequately addressed in the regional system proposed. Mr. Carlson noted that they are not on the state route system today. It was agreed that the ownership issue must be addressed. Mr. Bivens, Mr. Radicke and Ms. Cornelio agreed they would not want roads of regional significance to become state routes. Mr. Carlson suggested the adoption of a policy that would restrict HURF funds to jurisdictions that do not adequately address the design problems related to roads of regional significance. Mr. Bivens added to this with the suggestion that all entities agree on a set of standards and then let the local/regional jurisdiction handle the resolution. If they fail to do so, then HURF fund distributions would be affected. Mr. Reed suggested the adoption of performance measures for roads of regional significance. Mr. Bivens suggested assigning responsibility of overseeing roads of regional significance to the district engineer. It was agreed that ownership of roads of regional significance should remain with the local authority with no option of turn backs to the state. Ms. Cornelio recommended that a percentage of any new tax should go directly to roads of regional significance.

Committee members discussed the role of the State Transportation Board under a centralized system. The following suggestions were made:

• State Transportation Board set criteria for priorities
• If a local jurisdiction does not comply with performance standards, the district engineer would notify the ADOT director and State Transportation Board, and allocation of funds would be impacted
• All members should serve on an at-large basis
• Rural Arizona rotation should continue
• State Transportation Board members should be full-time, paid positions
• State Transportation Board members should be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate; the chairmanship should rotate and be selected by the board
• Responsibilities of STB should be more policy oriented
• Remove some responsibilities, i.e. awarding contracts

Committee members moved the discussion to the topic of planning and design. The following suggestions were made:

• Complete the long-range planning exercise first and then develop a policies plan
• Develop an unconstrained long-range plan and then evaluate the funds available and apply them to the plan; implement through a six-year program
• Require local jurisdictions where major developments impact the state system to come up with transportation solutions prior to approval of the development; if the local government does not mitigate the impact, then HURF dollars would be withheld
• Make the program a living document adopted through an iterative process
• Institute a six-year capital program with an annual budget process; allocate funds on an as-needed basis
• ADOT should have responsibility for the functional classification system
• Require that ADOT put the construction program on their website, providing full public access to the data
• Establish a database and criteria for qualified roads
• Institute a HURF audit function on a two-year cycle and report the findings publicly; this will impact how funds are spent
• Reevaluate the HURF distribution formula every few years
• Require a state needs assessment every five years, to include a regional needs assessment
• Consider whether the current number of State Transportation Board members is adequate; consider whether the urban areas are being adequately served
• Revisit and clean up the statutory language regarding the State Transportation Board
• Discuss with the full task force whether ADOT should create the six-year capital program, which would be consistent with State Transportation Board policies but not approved by the board
• Create a mechanism whereby the state transportation fund can contribute moneys to transit
• Look at the issue of state control over Sky Harbor Airport versus the City of Phoenix; specifically consider transit opportunities relative to the airport
• ADOT should provide technical assistance to bring all jurisdictions (local and regional) up to speed; ADOT would hire staff and have jurisdictions contract with ADOT to provide the technical assistance service

Mr. Radicke asked how the state would transition from the system it currently operates under to the final recommendation of the task force. Mr. Bivens suggested that a simple plan would be for ADOT to live up to its current commitments and implement the changes during the next round of programming. He would recommend that the current plan be held harmless.

Decentralized Group Discussion

Committee members discussed the role of districts under a decentralized system. The following suggestions were made:

• Transportation Districts would be authorized in enabling state statutes
• Districts would be established by state law to include one or more counties
• The District governing board would be elected
• The District would have an independent professional staff
• The District may utilize the services of personnel of other political subdivisions
• The District would approve a five and twenty-year intermodal transportation plan
• The transportation plan would include roadway, regional aviation, freight rail, intra-regional inter-city and intra-regional rail passenger, bicycle, and pedestrian and public transit services
• The twenty-year plan shall conform to the state prescribed development process and transportation performance measures
• The districts shall recognize and incorporate federal planning requirements, such as air quality, conformance, in their planning and operating practices
• To the extent that plans of adjacent Districts conflict, the State Transportation Department shall mediate the areas of conflict and State Transportation Board/Commission shall adopt the controlling resolution

The two groups joined together, and Ms. Atkins directed that Mr. Maguire and Mr. Reed refine their structure proposals and forward the amended document to the committee members before the next meeting.

Call to the Public

Ms. Esther Corbett, speaking on behalf of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, called for increased coordination, cooperation and consultation between the tribal governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, Department of Economic Security, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the US Department of Transportation. She highlighted the transportation challenges faced by tribal governments, including insufficient funding and qualified personnel necessary to address transportation issues. Ms. Corbett presented Governance recommendations to improve the state transportation system as it relates to Arizona’s tribal governments. In conclusion, she requested that the task force and legislature promote the intent of TEA-21 in all transportation endeavors through full consultation, coordination and cooperation.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

KURT DAVIS, Governance Chairperson