Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
DEFINITION OF NEEDS, RESOURCES AND REVENUES
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 28, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 28, 2000 with Chairperson Barbara Ralston presiding. Other members in attendance were Steve Basila, Paulson Chaco, Valerie Manning, Dennis Mitchem, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Alan Maguire was also present.
Welcome
Chairperson Ralston called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 a.m.
Acceptance of Minutes for November 8, 2000
Action: A motion to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion of Transportation Needs and Revenue Draft Recommendations
Mr. Maguire read a handout entitled "DRAFT Potential Recommendations" dated November 28, 2000.
Comprehensive Financial Management
Mr. Wheeler asked how different the recommendation is from what ADOT currently does and how expensive would it be to do a model. Mr. Carlson said the consultant’s recommendation was for a two or three year certification process with an estimated cost of $3 million to apply it statewide. Mr. Maguire said the estimate is based on the number of lane miles in the current system and the number of lane miles there would be in a statewide system. Mr. Carlson said the cost of certification would depend on how often they went through the process. He said the estimate was also based on major capital improvements and large cost items.
Ms. Manning questioned why they would not include other transportation funding. Mr. Maguire explained ADOT does not have control over dollars received by other entities and the fear of loss of control of those funds leads to the entities’ resistance to disclosure. Ms. Manning suggested ADOT act as an overseer, thereby letting the control mechanisms stay in place.
Chairperson Ralston said this committee’s recommendation should be that it be coordinated and that it is the Governance Committee’s responsibility to figure out how to make it happen. Mr. Maguire said Governance would probably not get into this issue, as they look more at interjurisdictional relationships.
Mr. Thorwald said coordination and cooperation between the reporting agencies would be needed. He asked Mr. Maguire to define the term certification as it is used in the recommendation. Mr. Maguire explained an estimate is developed with the CFO signing off on the revenue forecast and the State Engineer signing off on the projected cost forecast. He said the certification simply certifies that, to the best professional ability of the person signing off on the forecast, the numbers being presented are reliable and accurate and were properly developed. Mr. Thorwald asked what the Life Cycle includes. Mr. Carlson said maintenance was not included in the current model, however, it could be included this month. Mr. Thorwald expressed his opinion maintenance would have to be included to reflect true life cycle costs. Mr. Maguire said the current Life Cycle for the Maricopa regional freeway system does not take the life cycle of a project into account. He stated it is a specific funding source management system. Mr. Thorwald suggested having a standard by which everyone uses the same definition of Life Cycle costs that includes maintenance.
Ms. Ralston said they are talking about expanding the existing process to include the management of preservation and expansion projects on a long-term basis.
Mr. Maguire said the committee has to determine the time frame certification would cover. He recommended a longer time frame of 10 to 20 years, explaining cost effectiveness of maintenance and preservation would be distorted by a shorter time frame. Ms. Ralston expressed the Committee’s consensus on a 20-year time frame.
Mr. Carlson explained they would go back and refine the process.
Ms. Tischer pointed out that one of the Department’s recommendations was to take the MAG Freeway System model and apply the concept to ensure open visibility and accountability.
Mr. Carlson stated the Planning and Programming Committee has endorsed the idea of identifying, maintaining and improving roads of regional significance. He suggested they consider which systems beyond ADOT’s control should be included.
Mr. Thorwald said mandating state and local agencies to assist in preparing the annual certifications does not include tribal entities. He stated there should be a way to work with the tribal entities to coordinate the process. Ms. Ralston said the roads of regional significance concept would encompass that. Mr. Carlson agreed, noting the Planning and Programming Committee is considering what kind of assistance ADOT could supply the Tribes to make sure their plans are compatible with the state’s plan. Ms. Ralston suggested adding a statement in the recommendation that ensures the concept is comprehensive in its scope and includes all entities.
Comprehensive Standardized Data Collection and Reporting
Mr. Wheeler asked if the recommendation would be expensive to implement. He also asked what problems would there be in implementing the recommendation. Mr. Maguire said one problem is that the state never had a single uniform system before. He suggested an unintended consequence would be that they would come up with a standardized level that would be relatively close to the most complex methodology used in the state. He said, therefore, smaller planning agencies would have to be funded to perform at a higher level.
Mr. Thorwald asked about the potential for using a centralized computer and analysis system. Mr. Carlson said the Data Center basically is a centralized computer system. He estimated it to cost $2.23 million to hire a contractor and bring the data up-to-date. He said it would then cost approximately $300,000 a year to maintain the database. Mr. Maguire explained it would contain methodological procedures as well as quantitative data.
Ms. Ralston asked if the existing ADOT database and the newly created database would be consolidated. Mr. Maguire said he could see there being a geographic database linked to future project information.
Ms. Tischer said the Planning and Programming Committee is recommending development of a performance planning and programming process. She explained implementation of that process requires data be developed on the existing system.
Mr. Thorwald asked what it would cost to subsidize entities around the state. He emphasized the need to include Tribal entities. Mr. Carlson said it would cost $2.3 million to bring the system up to date with a $300,000 annual cost statewide to maintain the database.
Ms. Ralston asked if the Governance Committee has come up with anything that would negatively impact or conflict with this recommendation.
Mr. Thorwald asked how tribal communities would be incorporated into the recommendation. Mr. Maguire said the state’s power to mandate conformance by the Tribes is limited. Ms. Ralston suggested those relationships continue to be developed and to try to find opportunities for that dialog to happen.
Mr. Thorwald asked Mr. Chaco if the Tribes would be willing to participate. Mr. Chaco explained they have spent an enormous amount of their transportation planning money to update data. He said the state could have problems getting accident data from the Tribal communities, however, the Tribal communities could also have problems getting data from the state. He agreed the state could not mandate that the Tribes get a uniform system, stating, however, they could get a cooperative agreement.
Ms. Ralston suggested the recommendation indicate that the methodologies developed be shared with the Tribes.
Ms. Manning stated loss of revenue would be the most effective method of enforcement. Ms. Ralston agreed.
Mr. Thorwald suggested adding language about establishing a cooperative agreement with the Tribes. Ms. Ralston said she would leave that until the final drafting of the document
Re-dedication of the Flight Property Taxes to the State Aviation Fund
Ms. Ralston asked Mr. Maguire if he feels prior allocations should be reimbursed to the fund. Mr. Maguire said there are people advocating that idea.
Ms. Manning asked if returning the money would require legislative action. Mr. Maguire said it would. Ms. Manning suggested they would have a better chance of getting a partial reimbursement rather than the full amount. She expressed her opinion that the money should not be directed towards economic development, noting cities with rural airports have money for economic development. She stated Tucson and Phoenix should be taken out because they do not need access to the fund. Ms. Ralston clarified that there should be an evaluation of the economic impact and whether it would benefit a community. Mr. Maguire agreed. Ms. Manning said the restructuring makes sense in terms of prioritizing and maximizing dollars. Mr. Maguire explained they would use economic impact as a measuring tool.
Mr. Thorwald noted there are inadequate monies to fund all of the airports in the state. He asked what happened to the work done last year to restore the Flight Fund and to improve the regional airports of significance. Mr. Carlson explained competing bills to restore the Flight Property Tax, none of which received a hearing. He expressed his opinion that it was a budget issue because there was a very limited amount of excess federal fund revenues.
Mr. Thorwald expressed his opinion it would be better to not try to recapture previous funds, but to restore the Flight Fund. Mr. Ralston agreed it would probably be easier, stating, however, she is not sure they should make that kind of judgement call. She said the committee should recommend to the full task force that some reimbursement is appropriate because the funds were diverted when they should have been preserved. She asked at what level in the process should they make their recommendation. She also asked what percentage of the previous funds they should request be returned.
Mr. Carlson said he anticipates the task force recommending some type of revenue source and, if so, it would be easy to dedicate a certain amount to restore the Flight Fund. He said it would be very difficult, politically, for the legislature to take money out of the General Fund.
Ms. Manning asked if the restructuring would be a legislative decision. Mr. Maguire said it would have to be in the bill.
Ms. Ralston asked if ADOT would be responsible for making the recommendation to restructure to the Legislative committee. Mr. Maguire explained all they would give is a policy direction that says they are narrowing the focus to secondary airports and changing the criteria for monies given out.
Mr. Thorwald noted the airport on the Navajo Nation at the extreme northeastern portion of the state is not covered and asked how the recommendation would apply to the Tribes. Mr. Carlson said the opinion from the Attorney General’s office historically has been that Tribes were not eligible for grant assistance. He said other attorneys he has spoken to in the Legislative Council feel that could be overcome by a change in the statute. He explained, historically, Tribes have had to enter into an IGA with the counties to obtain money for a tribal airport. Mr. Chaco said any time they enter into an agreement, they are bound by Arizona Revised Statute that if a dispute arises out of the contract it will be litigated in state court. He explained their Attorney General and the Navajo Nation disagree, stating it should be litigated in Tribal court, which is why the Tribes cannot access any state money.
Prioritization of System Preservation
Ms. Manning said standards should be established for the level of preservation, noting those standards may need to be applied differently for urban and rural areas. She said legally mandating preservation expenditures would be difficult.
Mr. Wheeler stated he is leery of government mandates and asked Mr. Maguire if he believes people would not preserve the system unless it was mandated. Mr. Maguire said the recommendation, as currently written, would require disclosure. He explained, historically, there has been a strong debate in the Maricopa and Pima regions over preservation and expansion dollars, noting there has been pressure to move preservation dollars towards expansion. Mr. Wheeler asked what would be accomplished by adopting the recommendation. Mr. Maguire said the regions have to analyze and disclose what it would take to preserve the system.
Mr. Maguire asked if funds should be directed towards preservation before any money is spent on expansion. Ms. Manning said, from a business perspective, it makes sense to protect the investment.
Mr. Thorwald agreed money should be spent on preservation before being used for expansion. He said they would also have to tie in a funding mechanism to ensure that happens.
Ms. Manning suggested they could either mandate that first dollars be directed towards system preservation until it is complete or that 80 percent of every dollar has to be used for preservation. Mr. Maguire said the task force could recommend the state and local transportation entities adequately fund preservation for the purpose of preserving the asset. Ms. Manning stated that would be too vague. Mr. Maguire said they could go further by requiring jurisdictions to justify underexpenditures. He said sanctions could also be imposed if expenditures are continually too low.
Mr. Thorwald said some communities in rural areas would argue they do not get adequate funds to maintain the existing roads, much less to do any expansion, because of the way the DES formula calculates population.
Ms. Manning stated someone would have to have oversight authority if the committee made that kind of recommendation. Mr. Carlson explained the data center has the capability of measuring the status of the pavement. He expressed his opinion that if they try to apply this standard down to the county and city level, they should focus on the major arterial streets or the roads of regional significance. Ms. Manning asked who they are recommending be responsible for overseeing the standard.
Mr. Chaco asked if the oversight responsibility is already mandated in federal law. Ms. Tischer said there is a statement in federal law that says roads constructed with federal funds need to be adequately maintained.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that would be appropriate for state funds as well. He reiterated that some communities in the state do not receive enough money to maintain, much less expand the roads they have. Mr. Maguire said they would add that jurisdictions shall expend any state shared revenues for preservation to the extent funds are available.
Prioritization of Congestion Relief and Commuter Services
Ms. Ralston said most of the ideas in this recommendation are reasonably easy to implement and help make the whole idea saleable. She said there is no disagreement that these items be at the front end of the process, but the question is one of funding. She stated she would support not funding it from existing revenues, but rather touting it as a benefit to the public and asking for their assistance.
Mr. Wheeler asked if there is a possibility that that would result in having less money for management. Mr. Maguire said they could put in a "maintenance of effort" requirement. He stated, if they go for a tax and are unsuccessful, they would go back to the status quo which has a certain amount of pressure already. He said, with the 15 percent money they receive now, they end up taking funds from other sources. Mr. Carlson said it tends to entice cities, especially in this region, to participate with ADOT.
Mr. Thorwald mentioned reversible lanes for capacity enhancement. Ms. Ralston stated the recommendation is not all inclusive. Mr. Thorwald noted they had testimony that there would be an immediate 25 percent benefit using those kinds of methods. He expressed his opinion that reversible lanes would be a very viable thing to do and should be their focus. Ms. Ralston pointed out the recommendation states it will focus on those things that have significant impact on throughput and congestion relief.
Dedicated Funding for Transportation Corridor Preservation
Mr. Carlson said they currently spend approximately $10 million out of their discretionary funding for advanced acquisition and would like to see that increased to $20 million. He stated they would also like to be able to increase funding for long term preservation of corridors and for short term acquisition hardship cases. He said highway preservation was one of the main focuses of Planning and Programming in terms of land use planning and transportation. He noted the current law only allows them to go out 10 years in purchasing rights-of-way and Planning and Programming would like to go out further.
Ms. Ralston asked if there is an adequate definition of how purchased rights-of-way are handled when the decision is made not to proceed with the project. Mr. Carlson stated there is a fear in the Legislature of ADOT land banking, therefore the committee has said ADOT’s ability to purchase advanced rights-of-way has to be limited to projects in it’s 20-year plan. He said there will also be legislation to improve ADOT’s ability to get rid of remnant property. Ms. Ralston asked if that should be part of this recommendation. Mr. Carlson stated he believes it should be. Mr. Maguire stated he would add language about improving the disposition process. Mr. Carlson offered to do a summary of what is being considered in the Legislation that would help the process.
Mr. Thorwald asked if ADOT could sell property to the private sector. Mr. Carlson explained ADOT tries to do that by holding public auctions. He said there has been resistance due to fears of losing the corridor if the property is turned back to the private sector. Ms. Ralston suggested selling it to the private sector when it is no longer part of the longer range plan.
Discussion of Transportation Needs and Revenue Draft Recommendations
Ms. Ralston postponed this discussion until the next meeting.
Presentations on Tribal Transportation Issues
Mr. Chaco introduced Mr. John Largo and Ms. Rita Thomas from the Navajo Nation Department of Transportation.
Mr. Largo explained they have five major Transportation Roads Committees that meet monthly to plan road projects, economic development and community development for local areas. He said the Committees receive requests from the local chapter levels and vote on whether to proceed on those requests. He said if the Committee votes to proceed, it goes to the Transportation and Community Development Committee of the Navajo Nation Council. He said different committees of the Council act as the legislative body of the Navajo Nation and have final approval on road projects. He estimated receiving slightly less than $60 million for road construction projects this year, which amounts to one major project funded per agency. He stated he works for the Transportation Planning Program and they get Two Percent Planning Program money and construction money from Federal Highways. He said their Department of Transportation does a lot of the archeological and environmental assessments, right of clearances and so forth. He referred to the Navajo Nation Long Range Comprehensive Transportation Plan and reviewed Indian Reservation Roads funding allocations. He explained the relative needs formula, which is based on a 20 percent population, 30 percent vehicle miles traveled and 50 percent cost to improve.
Mr. Chaco noted they have approximately $110 million from their General Fund, which is then redistributed among the 10 divisions of Tribal Government. He said they also have a fuel gas tax initiated by the Legislature and Navajo Nation Council which generates approximately $10 million per year. He said statutes require those funds be given directly to the General Fund and are not dedicated to transportation. He explained the Navajo Nation is looking into the possibility of rededicating that money specifically for roads.
Mr. Largo reviewed their Road Maintenance Program, stating a lot of their roads are not maintained properly. He said a lot of people on the reservation believe they should turn the roads over to the counties and let them do the work. He stated, however, if the Tribes give up their rights-of-way, they lose those Federal Highway dollars.
Mr. Chaco noted there was a recent United States Supreme Court decision in 1997, which vastly effected the way they cooperate with states. He explained the Supreme Court stated that any time they give up their jurisdiction to a state or county for right-of-way purposes, whole jurisdictions rest with the state or county. He said this, in effect, puts a checkerboard jurisdiction within their nation where they have no control over who drives over their roads. He suggested Vision 21 recommend to the state and Tribal legislatures that changes be enacted to encourage a truly cooperative effort.
Ms. Ralston noted a significant part of the Navajo Nation is in Arizona, however, a portion of it resides in Utah and New Mexico. She asked if there are things they have experienced with Utah or New Mexico that Arizona might want to consider. Mr. Chaco stated they have a cooperative agreement with New Mexico on road projects. He explained they enter into Joint Powers of Agreements with them on state and BIA routes. He said they entered into an agreement with the state of Utah approximately three or four years ago to do a road project between Cortez, Colorado and the Navajo Nation. He stated incorporating some of the specific language into their agreements with Arizona could move a long way towards cooperation with, not only the Navajo Nation, but all Tribes. Mr. Carlson asked how they resolved the issue of which court would hear disputes. Mr. Chaco said New Mexico does not have the same statute.
Mr. Thorwald asked how they work with the Hopi Tribe. Mr. Chaco stated the Hopi Tribe gets their funding out of the Phoenix area office. He explained they enter into agreements with the various area offices on road projects.
Mr. Largo noted the New Mexico State Legislature also funded several projects for preconstruction planning, archeological studies, environmental assessments, and right-of-way clearances. He said it is difficult to do that with the Arizona State Legislature.
Mr. Largo continued with his presentation reviewing the overall road system for the Navajo Nation. He identified their top 20-year transportation needs as being network integration and continuity; traffic demand; pavement management; safety; accessibility; growth center street needs; development/traffic generator access; scenic byways, tourism and recreation; intermodal transportation; bridge improvements; agency transportation and environmental considerations. He estimated the cost of their 20-year transportation needs to be in excess of $2 billion.
Mr. Chaco stated the interstate system is their number one priority.
Mr. Thorwald asked what is the population and growth rate of the Nation. Mr. Chaco referred to the Population Projection table which estimated a population in excess of 200,000 by the year 2010.
Mr. Chaco reiterated that the sovereignty issue will not go away and suggested, if they are going to integrate the Navajo Nation and other Tribes, that a recommendation come from the task force for both legislatures to put a comprehensive system in place.
Ms. Ralston recommended this item be placed on the agenda for further discussion at the next meeting.
Call to the Public
No requests to address the committee were submitted by the public.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
BARBARA RALSTON, Chairperson
