Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, November 29, 2000
Arizona State Capitol, Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, November 29, 2000 with Chairman Kurt Davis presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Ingo Radicke and Jim Shipman. Also present were Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company, Mary Lynn Tischer, John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor and Jennifer Macdonald, Legislative Liaison.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 1:47 p.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for November 9, 2000
A motion to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Discussion of Governance Draft Recommendations
Centralized Structure
Mr. Maguire noted the State Transportation Board’s name was changed to the State Transportation Commission in an effort to change its focus. He stated the centralized group remained at the proposed size of nine members with not more than three members from any county with greater than one-third of the state’s population and not more than one member appointed from any other county. He stated they would serve staggered six year terms. He explained the Commission would elect a Chairperson and that the Chairperson position would rotate so that at least every third year it would come from a large county. He said the Board would be a policy board, which the department would be responsible for implementing the policies of the Commission.
Mr. Maguire briefly reviewed the Commission’s roles and responsibilities, including developing and approving a long-range, statewide, multi-modal transportation plan for state owned facilities and transportation facilities that are of state interest. He stated the Commission would also develop and approve key transportation performance measures, noting the Planning and Programming Committee discussed performance measurers at length. He pointed out that planning, programming, development and maintenance responsibilities for intra-regional roads of regional significance would not be transferred to the state level. He stated the Commission would be charged with maintaining data concerning the 20-year needs of the state-owned transportation system and other systems of interest to the state. He noted the Planning and Programming and Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committees argued the comprehensive database should be linked to a geographic database to the extent possible.
Mr. Maguire stated the department would retain most of its existing powers and be given responsibility for awarding construction contracts using state, federal, local or regional funds. He said the department would also be responsible for developing transportation performance measures and the annual reporting performance of the state’s transportation systems. He noted a question remains as to separation of authority between projects and program approval. He said the department would work within the guidance provided by the Commission and ultimately approve the specific six year transportation program. He pointed out the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee adopted a proposed recommendation that expands the Life Cycle concept currently applied for the Maricopa Regional Freeway System to the statewide transportation system. He explained they want to have annual certifications with respect to projected costs and revenues for the system to create an increased degree of accountability. He said the department would provide technical assistance to local and regional planning agencies for all phases of the transportation planning process. He noted the Planning and Programming Committee adopted a recommendation to increase funding and planning assistance available to substate transportation planning entities.
In regards to funding, Mr. Maguire said the Planning and Programming Committee recommended that specifically identified revenues be dedicated to transit funding at the state level for distribution to local governments. He said the state would conduct biennial audits of city and county uses of HURF distributions.
Chairperson Davis asked who would perform the state audit. Ms. Tischer noted there has been a recommendation from the other committees to have an audit every three years.
Mr. Browning asked if they would build upon the needs database being created by the consultants. He suggested they use and build upon the information they have already collected when updating the long-range plan. Mr. Maguire said a recommendation has been made to uniform data collection standards. He noted a geographic database currently exists at the ADOT data center and has been incorporated into a GIS. He said the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee recommended that database be fully populated down to the level of regionally significant facilities. He estimated the cost of updating the database to be $2.5 million with an annual update cost of $300,000. Mr. Browning recommended there be a mandate for the standardized reporting of data. He suggested the plan be updated on the off-budget year.
Chairperson Davis questioned whether the term "similar" in the second paragraph on Page 6 should be stronger. He explained that a centralized system needs very specific criteria in regards to records.
Mr. Radicke stated he would not have a problem with a six year program.
Chairperson Davis asked why the adoption of performance standards would not apply to all transportation modes and levels.
Mr. Bivens explained the Planning and Programming Committee discussed having all transportation agencies develop transportation priorities with adoption of the process mandated by law. He expressed his opinion that, regardless of the model the task force selects, there will have to be reconciliation between the various committees.
Mr. Maguire noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenue Committee adopted a resolution stating ADOT should develop and the State Transportation Commission should approve transportation data collection, reporting standards and methodologies. He continued, stating the standards should cover system characteristic data, traffic and system utilization data, system performance data, estimated project costs, revenue data and future projections. He said all transportation agencies within the state should be required by law to use the adopted standards and methodologies and to annually report required data to the department. He stated the department should collectively report the standardized transportation data covering all aspects of the statewide transportation system and as much data as possible should be incorporated or linked to a geographic database.
Mr. Shipman said they, as the Governance Committee, should be looking at span of control, where accountability lies and what authority the Commission would have to implement its decision. He stated it appears the Commission would have more jobs in terms of the database and relationships with local governments. He questioned whether the Commission would be able to do much more than audit those items, noting it does not have an independent staff. He stated they have not done anything to heighten the Board’s public accountability. He questioned what measures could be taken to ensure the Commission’s objectives and goals are carried out.
Mr. Maguire agreed the lack of independent staff effects their ability to function effectively. He explained they purposely made different choices in the two models to provide a means of comparing and contrasting. He said he put the elected board on the District side, therefore, the appointed board was put on the state side. He stated the elected board could easily be moved to the state side. He said the underlying tone was to change the board to more of a policy board.
Mr. Radicke questioned the benefit of changing the Board’s responsibility for awarding contracts.
Chairperson Davis agreed if a Board or Commission is being granted authority, they have to be given the tools to be authoritative.
Mr. Radicke agreed they do not need any more unfunded mandates. Chairperson Davis argued that one of the responsibilities of a centralized Commission would be to decide whether to fund mandates or not.
Mr. Radicke suggested merging the centralized and decentralized approaches to come up with a unified approach everyone agrees to. Chairperson Davis noted that would require a vote. He said the two approaches are very different philosophically.
Mr. Browning said there are issues that need to be addressed regardless of whether they adopt a centralized or decentralized process. He said the document by-and-large addresses roads and does not address other modes of transportation. Chairperson Davis referred to the caveat that said regional routes of significance refers to all forms. Mr. Browning said the various sets of criteria and standards that currently exist need to be cleaned up so they can be applied to the system regardless of the mode. He noted, however, the people and bodies that govern the system need to recognize the unique criteria by which airports, bus terminals or rail systems are judged. He suggested they focus in on the key issues of both the centralized and decentralized approaches.
Mr. Maguire noted the Planning and Programming Committee discussed the adoption of performance measures that go beyond output to look at overall outcomes. He pointed out, however, some measures may only be useful in regards to one mode. Mr. Browning agreed stating there are criteria and standards that make a significant difference to an airport, but have no relevance to a highway interchange. He said coordination between the governing bodies and the various modes has not been addressed in any of the models.
Decentralized Structure
Mr. Maguire reviewed the decentralized structure model, stating it provides for the creation of statutorily prescribed transportation districts. He said those districts would be established by law to include one of more counties. He explained the Governing Board would be composed of five elected members, serving staggered four-year terms. He said the members would be prohibited from serving two full terms. He stated the Governing Board would have overall legal, financial and operational authority for the district and would be able to hire independent staff or utilize the staff of other political subdivisions through intergovernmental agreements. He said the Governing Board would approve a five to 20 year inter-modal transportation plan, noting that could be changed to six years in light of previous comments. He said the plan would include roadway; regional aviation; freight rail; intra-regional, inter-city and intra-regional passenger rail; bicycle; pedestrian and public transit services.
Chairperson Davis said part of the previous conversations was that the Governing Board would have accountability and responsibility for regional air traffic to ensure an airport was not built where surface transportation to it was not available.
Mr. Browning asked how they deal with aviation issues when they have taken Sky Harbor out of the equation, noting it consumes the vast majority of airspace. Mr. Maguire agreed they would need to have a relationship and coordinate with Sky Harbor, stating, however, they would not transfer ownership or authority. Mr. Browning stated Sky Harbor needs to be part of the solution, therefore excluding them does not make sense. Chairperson Davis said some people advocated that Sky Harbor be within the district in which it resides. Mr. Browning expressed his opinion that the creation of districts would have no meaning unless all players were involved.
Mr. Maguire stated the 20-year plan would be updated on a five year cycle and would conform to state prescribed development process and transportation performance measures. He said the District would be responsible for planning, programming, development and maintenance of inter and intra-regional roadways and transportation systems of regional significance. He stated the District would recognize and incorporate federal planning requirements in their planning and operating practices. He said, to the extent that the plans of adjacent districts conflict, the State Transportation Department would mediate the areas of conflict and the State Transportation Board/Commission would adopt the controlling resolution. He stated the District would cooperate with local governments and regional transportation planning agencies to develop and adopt a Needs Analysis Study.
In regards to funding, Mr. Maguire said the District would be empowered by a vote of the Governing Board to levy and collect sales taxes, property taxes and transportation development fees to fund their operations as prescribed by state statute. He said the District would also receive one-half of all existing transportation related revenues collected by the state and distributed to political subdivisions within the District. He stated the District would be authorized to issue HURF-secured Bonds and other Transportation bonds as authorized by the State Legislature.
Mr. Browning asked to what extent someone actually went through the funding mechanism in regards to taxing authority. He asked if the Districts’ authority to levy taxes would be in addition to or supplant the cities’, municipalities’ and counties’ authority. Mr. Maguire said this would be a new, special purpose level of government. Mr. Browning asked, if this approach were adopted, would it absorb some of the cities’ and counties’ current authority to raise money for transportation. Mr. Maguire said the District would only serve regional aspects of the system, therefore, the counties and cities would continue to provide for a fairly extensive system of local roads.
Chairperson Davis said, if they take the Committee’s recommendations for the needs of the state system, including regional systems, the number will be massive. He expressed his opinion that most of the ideas they will put forth for funding will not happen. He asked how they can create a system where a geographic area can still move forward and begin to break down the barriers of city-specific systems that stop at artificial boundaries. He said providing a regional structure without giving regions the authority to make decisions prevents them from being able to move forward. Mr. Maguire stated there is some precedent in Arizona to provide counties with taxing authority for specific purposes by virtue of a simple vote of the Governing Board.
Mr. Radicke asked if the scenario has been proven in any other state. Mr. Maguire said he is not aware of another structure exactly like this, but there are other decentralized structures. Mr. Radicke asked how rural areas would benefit from this approach as opposed to metropolitan areas. He said he could see rural areas having problems obtaining the necessary funding through taxation. Chairperson Davis noted taxation is not the only form of revenue, pointing out there is a transfer of revenue. He said, therefore, they would have more ability to fulfill their own destiny than under the current system.
Mr. Shipman said it seems the regional approach does not address the state system. He expressed his opinion that the Committee’s task is to strengthen the regional areas and asked how they harmonize the things that should be done at the state level with those they want done at the regional level. Mr. Maguire said the clear sense coming through recommendations crafted by both the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenue Committee and the Planning and Programming Committee is that the role of the state will be to establish a more uniform practice at the state, regional and local levels. He said the question is how they balance the standardizing role of the state with regional authority. He stated, assuming a more uniform system of procedures, processes and criteria, they need to determine how to ensure the interests of the region are accurately reflected in the plans and programs implemented. Mr. Shipman asked if that means they have to create more than a regional entity. Chairperson Davis said the answer is two-fold. He explained the first part is to allow the region to pursue its dreams and aspirations for its transportation system, unhindered by other levels of government whose interests may not be the same. He said the second part is that local or regional entities do not have the power to make rules if the money is held at the state level. Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Davis if he feels all of the money should be held at the regional level, or just that money directed towards the regional freeway system. Mr. Davis said he would have all money at the regional level because it would give regions the ability to create additional funding and to go beyond what the state hands down. He stated the regions are capable of deciding what they need and if they want to tax themselves further. He said if money is located with those who make the decisions and implement the plans, accountability will also lie with them. Mr. Maguire stated heightened accountability is one of the key issues for the Committee and Task Force as a whole. He agreed heightened accountability is most easily effectuated through increased visibility and independence. Mr. Shipman said he does not disagree in terms of accountability and that the easy way to do it is to create an elected body. He stated, however, that the elected body cannot be a freestanding body with no system of checks and balances. Chairperson Davis argued the voter would act as the ultimate check. Mr. Maguire said the model speaks to that point by requiring the twenty-year plan be done in conformance with state prescribed development features.
Mr. Radicke asked Chairperson Davis if the regions would have to take tax increases before voters in the counties or if the elected board could simply impose those taxes on the people. Chairperson Davis said it would be up to the board and, if the taxpayers did not like what the board did, they could remove them from office. Mr. Radicke noted that Flagstaff has taxed themselves to do various things in the community and asked Chairperson Davis how that differs from what a Board could do. Chairperson Davis explained Flagstaff decided to expand its bike and pedestrian paths, which a city can do so if it so chooses. He said, however, he would have preferred to see the county as a whole look at its transportation as opposed to one metropolitan area within the county. He said people using the transportation system do not care about the geographic boundaries as they are currently designated.
Mr. Shipman stated Chairperson Davis made some good points, but asked how he would feel if the Transportation Board placed restrictions on money given to the districts, for example, requiring that they look at connectivity. Chairperson Davis said he would not like it and believes the state should play more of a consultant’s role. Mr. Shipman asked if the state should dictate how the districts collect their data. Chairperson Davis said he has agreed to concede to some of those concerns in the decentralized model.
Mr. Maguire said creating accountability is the one hard issue left in the decentralized model. Mr. Shipman agreed there should be accountability to the public, but questioned if there should also be accountability to people outside a given region. Mr. Maguire said managing accountability from a regional entity to the state is beyond the scope of the model, however, it is not a loss because it does not currently exist. He explained the model would, at least, create downward accountability. Mr. Shipman stated they need to create two-way accountability. Chairperson Davis suggested they accomplished that by leaving regional corridors to the state. He said the economics of transportation would drive what regions do and create a barrier to stupidity. In contrast, he questioned what checks and balances would exist if the state continued to control funding.
Mr. Radicke asked Chairperson Davis how he would work with MPO’s and COG’s in the regions he would form as districts. Chairperson Davis said he would hope they are expanded to the same boundaries as the Districts. He said the MPO governing structure makes sense to him, however, he believes they are confined to artificial geographic boundaries that make no sense.
Mr. Shipman asked Chairperson Davis if the state should dictate what the regions are or if it would be up to individuals within the regions to make those decisions. Chairperson Davis said the state could make those decisions.
Mr. Bivens said he has concerns as to how it would be accomplished in regards to federal requirements for MPO’s. He stated he is also concerned about the creation of a single purpose agent that transcends other interrelated governmental activity. He agreed decisions of regional concern need to be made at that level, stating, however, there is also a need for the state to look at the state as a whole. He questioned whether accountability could be defined at the state, local and regional levels for the actions each level takes. He said they need to establish a way to provide an opportunity for consideration of regional issues and, at the same time, protect the overall benefit for the state. He stated he is not prepared to throw out the existing organization, nor superimpose another level of government. He said his concern and the task force’s charge is the state’s overall transportation needs, not the needs of individual communities or regions. Chairperson Davis said this is one way to make the system more credible and responsive, thus hopefully creating an atmosphere where there is a potential for more funding. He said fine tuning the current system would not increase people’s willingness to invest in it. He acknowledged that the approach is not perfect, stating it requires a certain philosophical belief that if you leave people in an area to determine what they want to accomplish and then provide them with the tools and mechanisms to do so, they will do a good job most of the time. He said if people view the system as doing a good job, they are more willing to invest, whereas, if they feel they have no say or control they are not willing to invest. He expressed his opinion that governance is the most important component in their effort to change credibility. Mr. Shipman said scale is another problem, explaining that when you get to the size of a Maricopa County, people lose credibility. Chairperson Davis argued, regardless of the size of a region, credibility is destroyed when people see money being spent on items they do not view as necessary and do not know who to hold accountable for the decision.
Mr. Shipman reiterated that the system they create should have accountability in both directions. Mr. Maguire asked Mr. Shipman how he would create that accountability. Mr. Shipman said the regions would have to adhere to the state standards, collect data and assure connectivity between systems. He said there has to be some kind of mechanism for enforcement of those mandates. Mr. Maguire noted the Committees have all agreed there is a need for increased standardization and have attached a method for enforcement. He noted the proposal, should it proceed, would have to blend with the work of the other Committees who have made it clear that increased standardization should be required.
Mr. Bivens asked what would happen if they gave each county authority and responsibility for transportation in their county with the tools necessary to enter into intergovernmental agreements should they need to cover a broader area. Mr. Bivens said he would like to see them to come to a conclusion that meets the primary requirements of local control without interference at the state level, but yet, does not completely dissolve the existing system. Chairperson Davis said, when that suggestion was initially made, it was decided that creating a regional structure would create a broader and stronger economic population base. Mr. Bivens explained they could give counties the authority to contract with each other for specific purposes and operate like a Board of Directors.
Mr. Shipman asked Chairperson Davis if he is comfortable with the decentralized model. Chairperson Davis said he is reconciled to the model. Mr. Shipman asked Chairperson Davis if there were any components of the centralized model he would like to see incorporated into the decentralized model. Mr. Maguire acknowledged certain aspects of the centralized model are not incompatible with the concept of creating a district. He explained where the two proposals directly conflict with each other is in respect to control over regional components of the transportation system.
Mr. Bivens asked if they are building in the same kind of handcuffs that currently exist in regards to the existing revenue stream. He said he feels they need to have both local areas and the state identify their goals over the long term and then go back and identify available revenue to determine what can be accomplished. He stated they need to show the public what goals have been identified and what can be accomplished with the available resources. He said he is hesitant to start off with a constrained plan that deals only with existing revenue sources.
Mr. Radicke asked Mr. Maguire what plans have been made for increasing revenue streams for the next 15 or 20 years.
Mr. Maguire noted Mr. Bivens suggestion was a direct reflection of a discussion that occurred in the Planning and Programming Committee. He explained the idea was that the development of the plan should not be limited by projected existing revenues available at the time of the plan, but should specifically identify those portions of the plan that can be funded with known revenues. He said that concept could be applied to the regional planning process as well. Ms. Atkins said part of the concept is that the region have the autonomy and authority to determine where and how they want to spend their money. Mr. Bivens suggested if the concept works at the regional level, it should work at the state level as well. Ms. Atkins agreed. Mr. Maguire said the task force has identified approximately five major revenue sources and would recommend incremental revenues. He explained it was left out of the structure debate because the had not yet determined how it would work, but once the pieces come together, it will be inserted. Chairperson Davis stated some believe that has to be done on a formula, "no-strings attached" basis.
Mr. Shipman said he would be concerned about changing the State Transportation Board to a Commission. He explained he does not see any value in changing them to a Commission if they are not provided a staff. He stated he is satisfied with the language so long as the regional body is accountable in terms of what is being developed and state standards. Mr. Maguire said he would work through the proposal to identify any existing conflicts.
Mr. Bivens said he would prefer the state agency be termed a Board. He said his concern is that they are asking the Board to develop the long range statewide multi-modal transportation plan without providing them a staff. Chairperson Davis suggested the Board could decide to staff itself. Mr. Maguire said he did not believe the Board could staff itself because it does not have the authority to hire personnel. Mr. Bivens emphasized his point that the Board needs staff support.
Mr. Maguire said the reason for changing the Board to a commission was, in part, cosmetic because, since becoming a Board, it has become more parochial. He explained the intent was to redesign the makeup of the Commission and send the message that they have been empowered with a new, at-large charge. He said it would remove the members’ responsibility for delivering projects to their districts.
Mr. Shipman said asking the Commission to do all it’s charged with without providing a staff would be terribly irresponsible and they would end up acting simply as a rubber stamp. Mr. Maguire offered to address that in the model. He stated discussions from earlier meetings addressed the need for additional staff for planning at the substate region and would apply to districts as well.
Mr. Bivens suggested permitting districts to gain access to the state’s resources, noting some areas of the state are sorely lacking in resources. Chairperson Davis noted the model already provides for that.
Mr. Shipman questioned whether the way money is raised is part of the Committee’s jurisdiction. Mr. Maguire explained there were two different system goals: 1) increased dedicated funding and 2) the reauthorization of locally imposed taxes. He said it is his sense that, to the extent the task force comes out with a statewide initiative, there would be an allocation process for the intended use of those monies and the new district would be supplement to that. Chairperson Davis stated regionally initiated tax increases stand a better chance of gaining support than statewide initiatives because people can see a direct benefit. Mr. Radicke agreed.
Mr. Radicke took offense to Mr. Maguire’s comments regarding the parochialism of the State Board. He emphasized that they look at all areas of the state.
Call to the Public
There were no requests to address the committee.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:21 p.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
