MINUTES OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:00 p.m., Monday, December 6, 1999
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a regular meeting at 1:06 p.m., Monday, December 6, 1999, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other Task Force members present were: Malcolm Barrett, Steve Basila, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Joe Herrick, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Sheldon Miller, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Ingo Radicke, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, and Steve Wheeler. Task Force members absent were: Cecil Antone, Lisa Atkins, Robert Bulla, Patrick Carlin, Kurt Davis, Diane McCarthy, Mary Peters, Raul Pina, and Jim Simmons.
Staff members present were: Stephanie Bondeson, John Carlson, Matt Carpenter, Alan Maguire, Jennifer Macdonald, John McGee, Harry Reed, and Mary Lynn Tischer. Speakers were: Dick Wright and Gregg Kiely.
Pledge of Allegiance, Opening Comments
Dr. Megdal called the meeting to order and noted a multi-part series of articles in the Mesa Tribune on the subject of the Task Force. Staff had provided copies of the articles published to date and would be forwarding the remaining articles when the series is complete.
Acceptance of the Minutes for the Following Full Task Force Meetings
September 9, 1999: Mr. Redondo noted that he, Mr. Herrick and Mr. Basila had been left off of the list of those present. Dr. Megdal suggested that future minutes list those absent as well as those resent. All agreed that the document should be called “Minutes” rather than “Professionally Prepared Summary” to be consistent with past minutes.
Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the September 9, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force meeting as corrected. The motion carried unanimously.
October 7, 1999: Mr. Bivens requested that his comment on page five be amended to add the word “federal” where he refers to “restrictions and amount of freedom the Task Force has.” It was noted that the reference to the Task Force 2025 should be corrected to read “MAG Vision 2025.” Finally, Dr. Megdal requested that “Announcements” be separated from “Discussion Items” on page one. Mr. Bivens indicated that it would be helpful to the members if items/information requested during a meeting were extrapolated from the minutes to ensure that they don’t “fall through the cracks.”
Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the October 7, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force meeting as corrected. The motion carried unanimously.
November 4, 1999 Joint Meeting: Mr. Mawhinney asked if it was correct that there was no representative from the City of Phoenix at the meeting. Mr. Shultz indicated that Mr. Norris Norwall, the city’s intergovernmental liaison was present as an observer. Mr. Mawhinney wished to note his sense of disappointment with the lack of representation by the Mayor or city management.
Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the November 4, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force/MAG Joint meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
November 4, 1999 Regular Meeting:
Dr. Megdal requested that page five of the minutes be changed to reflect the fact that it is the Task Force hiring the consultants, not Mr. Maguire; therefore, “he” on line 4 of paragraph five should be changed to “”the Task Force.”
Mr. Mawhinney suggested that the tone of the paragraph summarizing the discussion about the Aviation Trust Fund did not correctly reflect the discussion. He clarified that Ms. Atkins indicated she would get in touch with the congressional office to inquire about the possibility of borrowing from the Aviation Trust Fund. Members agreed to the suggestion that the minutes be approved with the caveat that the paragraph would be changed in a manner acceptable to Mr. Mawhinney.
Mr. Browning requested that a sentence be added following paragraphs two and three of page two noting that Task Force members would be provided with follow-up information in response to questions regarding the specific criteria and rationale used to determine the study’s estimates as well as where the study considers air space.
Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the November 4, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force meeting as corrected. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion of the Interim Report
Mr. Maguire presented a discussion draft of the Interim Report of the Transportation Vision 21 Task Force. He explained that the revisions made were based on a number of fairly comprehensive comments by Task Force members. He requested that further comments be directed to him by noon on Wednesday, December 8, so that a revised report can be produced on Thursday, December 9. Mr. Bivens suggested that the discussion center on substantive issues and that simple editorial comments be forwarded directly to Mr. Maguire.
Mr. Shultz recommended that the Executive Summary of the public input sessions be included in the Appendix, if the total package was not overly voluminous. He felt that the summary was very important and would be helpful. Mr. Olson stated his belief that too many attachments would overwhelm those persons reading the document. He suggested that the information is easily accessible by anyone interested in obtaining it. Mr. Shultz indicated he would accept Mr. Olson’s advice if the document was in fact easily accessible. The general consensus of the group was to leave the Executive Summary of the public input sessions out but to add a reference to the document and indicate specifically how it could be obtained.
Dr. Megdal expressed concern that perhaps there was undue emphasis placed on the concept of “partnering with other state agencies” in the public input summary as compared to other issues. She asked that all Task Force members consider this carefully to make sure the emphasis is correct.
Mr. Bivens was concerned with using acronyms in the document. He suggested that they be spelled out when first used or that a list of acronyms be provided following the table of contents. Ms. Cornelio suggested that staff have a person who has nothing to do with the project review the document to make sure that it would be easily understood by the average reader. Mr. Shultz reiterated the point that the document should somewhere describe where interested parties can obtain copies of key material used by the Task Force, in the most customer-friendly manner possible.
Dr. Megdal recommended that the preliminary findings be in their own section. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the Executive Summary be dedicated to the preliminary findings. He noted that the most important finding is the second bullet, and it should be the first bullet point. He felt it was important that the very obvious findings be expanded upon with specific information. He suggested that the first bullet point be expanded to state that the Task Force is in agreement that there needs to be some shuffling in the governance system. Finally, he suggested that where possible specific dollar amounts be included, i.e. the needs shortfall. The issue of putting specific figures in the Interim Report was discussed at length. Task Force members cautioned against doing so because of the difficulty in determining with precision what those figures are. The point was also emphasized that all previous figures are based on the federal requirement that plans be fiscally constrained, which will not be the case for the Task Force’s “vision.” Members were more comfortable with the statement that resources are woefully inadequate to meet the plan. Concerns were expressed with the problem of people seizing on the figures and making inappropriate assumptions and also with not emphasizing the problem sufficiently so as to make people understand the magnitude of the problem. Task Force members stressed the fact that the legislators will consider the Interim Report, and it needs to have a strong impact.
Mr. Carlson suggested that the report should reflect the Task Force being very critical of the data provided. The important message is that the Task Force in the end will come up with a credible needs number and processes in place to meet the transportation needs of the state.
Mr. Shultz suggested that the report make a strong statement with respect to the need for a new revenue source to complete a comprehensive system of transportation in the State of Arizona for the next 20 years. Mr. Bivens recommended that the DES projections that the state’s population will double in the next 20 years also be included in the preliminary findings. Ms. Manning suggested that the report include the Task Force’s intentions for dealing with the needs shortfall.
At the request of the Task Force, Dr. Tischer reviewed the current process underway at ADOT to develop a long-range plan. To date, they have met with all of the executive directors of the MPOs and COGS. She provided a brief overview of the Casa Grande Resolves and the process by which they will be implemented in developing the long-range plan.
After considerable discussion, it was decided that Mr. Carlson, Mr. Maguire and Mr. Wheeler would leave the meeting to draft language for inclusion in the Interim Report that would address the comments of the Task Force members. They were to return later in the meeting to present the draft language.
Presentation and Discussion of Design Build and A+B Contracting
Mr. Dick Wright, State Engineer, ADOT, presented an overview of the Design Build authorization (SB 1253). He explained why the state benefits from the use of this concept, presented a scheduling comparison chart, highlighted the one completed project (I-10/Cortaro Road in Tucson) and the second project that is currently underway (I-17 improvements). Mr. Wright listed the benefits of using Design Build on the two projects. A third project, not yet underway, will convert S.R. 68 from two to four lanes from Bullhead City to Golden Valley. The last project, 16 miles of general use, HOV and auxiliary lanes on U.S. 60, was highlighted. Cost and time savings were discussed for all four projects. Mr. Wright explained that ADOT has a bill before the legislature to expand the pilot program to add five more projects. He indicated that the concept is accepted by contractors and the engineering community. Mr. Wright provided a detailed explanation of the concept of A+B bidding. He reviewed Arizona’s positive experience in using this concept on six projects. He indicated that 38 states now use this contracting method. He confirmed that the process can be applied to other areas, such as transit.
Mr. Thorwald asked if the time value of money is calculated into the design build cost savings. Mr. Wright answered that it is not, although the agency recognizes it as a benefit of using the concept.
Mr. Shultz asked if the agency has experienced any deterioration of standards when using design build to complete projects. Mr. Wright answered that they have not and explained that the quality control processes in place are being used very effectively.
Mr. Shultz inquired about the public relations goals related to the I-17 project. Mr. Wright explained that there are significant requirements on that project relative to public relations. ADOT also offered incentives to the contractor to complete the project early. Both have been very effective. Mr. Wright verified for Mr. Shultz that the downside to using design build on a project is that costs are slightly higher, but no pattern has been established.
Mr. Wright confirmed for Mr. Bivens that road user costs are applied after a project is selected. At the request of Mr. Bivens, Mr. Wright offered to provide the Task Force with more information about how traffic requirements are weighted in the project selection process. Dr. Megdal suggested that the Task Force look at comparative information on the design build process when there is time.
Ms. Cornelio commented that her firm was involved in the Cortaro Road project. Because it was the first project of its kind, they were forced to deliver 100 percent of the plans prior to the start of the project. She felt that this project was not a good project to create comparisons on. She was very surprised to hear that the design build project costs more than a standard project. She believes this is not the case.
Ms. Steffey asked if local communities would be able to use the design-build legislation. Mr. Wright answered that another bill will include cities, counties and other entities, if it successfully passes through the legislative process. Ms. Steffey commented that completing projects quicker alone saves money. She agreed that the time value of money is important. Mr. Thorwald stated his belief that the time value of money would be a tool legislators would look at and grab hold of.
Presentation and Discussion on A.R.S. 28-8103, Special Lottery and Vehicle License Tax Monies (Local Transportation Fund)
Mr. Kiley presented a summary of the Local Transportation Funds Program resulting form the passage of HB 2565, including the program objectives, requirements associated with the program, funding distributions and projected funding. He indicated that the department is in the process of writing a report to the Governor on the status of HB 2565. He provided an overview of the usage of the program in urban and rural areas. As an outgrowth of the program, the State Transportation Board has appropriated an additional $5 million in Surface Transportation Funding to those jurisdictions that use 100% of LTAF II funding for transit. Mr. Kiley highlighted the existing ADOT transit programs: Section 5310 (elderly and persons with disabilities or special needs program) and Section 5311 (rural public transportation). He concluded that the department is very pleased with the result of HB 2565 in getting local transportation funds out to communities. At the request of Dr. Megdal, Mr. Kiley explained the very simple application process. He confirmed that LTAF I still exists and described the differences between it and LTAF II. Mr. Shipman clarified that the funding for LTAF II is from the state’s share of vehicle license tax and lottery revenues, not local governments.
Call to the Public
Mr. Blue Crowley, a resident of Phoenix, commented on the problems encountered when Camelback Road was improved, primarily resulting from the reduction in lanes from seven to two. He suggested that a transit system be blended with the HOV lanes. Mr. Crowley noted that less than $500,000 is being spent on transit for the special needs population and in the rural areas. He believes that the state is not spending as much as it should be on the programs. Mr. Crowley encouraged the Task Force to be as broadminded as possible in coming up with solutions to the state’s transportation problems.
Discussion of the Interim Report
Mr. Browning emphasized the need to create and follow a detailed program of work for next year, so that the Task Force doesn’t end up in the same place it is now at the end of 2000. In response to the comment, Mr. Maguire updated the group on the status of hiring the Task Force consultants. A number of responses have been received to the solicitation, and the search is currently being narrowed. Based on the current schedule, he estimated that the bid awards would be made on December 17. With respect to the work plan of the Task Force, the first task of two of the consultants will be to develop a detailed work plan, including a detailed timeline. Mr. Maguire indicated he was reluctant to put any type of timeline into the Interim Report until the consultants have had an opportunity to complete the task.
Mr. Bivens expressed concern with the procurement process, the number of RFPs distributed and the fact that none of the major national firms bid on the project. He asked why he could not be told who on the Task Force was serving on the selection committee. He would very much like to know the qualifications of the firms that have bid on the project prior to the final selection. Dr. Megdal passed along the professional advice of Ms. Kay Fisher, the person responsible for procurement, that the make-up of the selection committee not be shared. This was not a legal opinion, and Dr. Megdal indicated she would have gotten a legal opinion had she known of Mr. Bivens’ concern. She was hopeful that the Task Force members had enough confidence in each other to be sure that the three Task Force members on each committee would make the best possible selection. She noted the very serious procurement rules that have to be followed.
Mr. Maguire explained that there were 15-20 firms represented at each pre-bid conference, including between six and ten national firms. His sense was that there was significant interest and little concern with the short time frame for responding. He noted that there were other bids on the street at the same time, which may have impacted the number of responses to ADOT’s bids. He assured the Task Force that the committees would select the most qualified firms, or they will not award a bid.
Mr. Bivens assured the Task Force of his confidence in the members and clarified that he was concerned that the Task Force did not discuss the material in the RFP openly. He felt that the RFP may have been different had the Task Force members had the opportunity to provide input.
Mr. Maguire presented draft language to address the earlier comments of the Task Force with respect to specificity in terms of the revenue shortfall. He assured everyone that he would verify all facts and called for comments/changes.
Mr. Shultz recommended that the text somehow reference the difference between previous plans, which are fiscally constrained, and the plan that the Task Force will create. Dr. Megdal recommended that the Executive Order language on the Task Force’s “plan” be used. Ms. Ralston wished the verbiage to reflect the fact that the Task Force will approach planning in an entirely different way than any other entity has done in the past.
Mr. Thorwald recommended that the aviation shortfalls be included as a fifth bullet point. He noted that the average person may not assume that the numbers referenced in the bullet points are cumulative.
Mr. Browning agreed with the suggestions made but emphasized the need to convey the magnitude of the problem. Also, the Task Force needs to structure its work plan in such a way that it will in fact approach planning in an entirely different way. He stated that the message a reader needs to take away is, “the problem is huge, and I need to pay attention.” He suggested that the report recognize that the dialog to date has been two dimensional and that the state’s aviation issues have not been addressed.
Mr. Shultz noted that MAG’s long-range plan raises the issue of their dependence on the continuance of the half-cent sales tax out 20 years, which is very problematic.
Ms. Manning encouraged staff to include the growth projections for the state in the final version of the language and the caveat that the figures stated are not “all inclusive.”
The general consensus of the Task Force members was that they were comfortable with the language presented, with the adjustments noted.
Mr. Browning suggested that the December 13 agenda be cleared to allow for discussion and adoption of the Interim Report only. Dr. Megdal indicated that two of the speakers were flying in to Phoenix for the presentation, and the third was driving up from Tucson. She was concerned with changing the agenda and suggested that the meeting time be extended as long as necessary to accomplish all items. Some Task Force members were concerned with the effectiveness of extending the meeting time, and it was suggested that written comments be provided on the Interim Report so that another draft could be provided in advance of the meeting. This would facilitate a more focused discussion during the meeting. Another alternative discussed was to delay the issuance of the report. The majority were not in favor of this alternative.
Mr. Maguire called for further discussion on one outstanding issue with the Interim Report, that being the work plan.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that the Task Force meet with the consultants in January. He believed that this would be very beneficial to them as they develop the work plan.
Mr. Bivens suggested that the Task Force needs to simply identify critical issues that it needs to address in order to come up with a final report. Those issues would become the work plan.
Mr. Browning recommended a rough work plan/timeline: 1) definition of needs completed by March or April, 2) address funding, 3) address governance issues, create a preliminary report by October.
Mr. Shultz raised the issue of the time needed for the public input process and that the consultants must take to develop the basic data. He suggested setting no firm schedule until February.
Mr. Redondo agreed that the Task Force needs to begin finalizing language for the final report by October 2000. To accommodate that, it needs to be done with “training” by mid year to allow ample time for public input.
Ms. Manning suggested taking the tasks identified for each committee and fitting them into the consultants work to create what would be a very clear work plan for the Task Force to respond.
Mr. Thorwald indicated he would like to hear what other states in the West are doing, possibly in January. He is concerned that the month of January is being wasted. He suggested that the Task Force consider whether the December 2000 deadline needs to be extended.
Mr. Shultz stressed his preference that the Task Force not expect to slip into 2001 with its work.
Dr. Megdal suggested that the Task Force be presented with all of the follow up information it has requested in a meeting in January. She added that the Task Force needs to have an understanding of the toll road history in Arizona. She felt that there were a number of items that the Task Force needs to address that are not related to the work of the consultants.
Mr. Bivens suggested meeting in January, with the consultants, to give them an idea of what the Task Force is thinking.
Ms. Cornelio agreed that a December 13 meeting longer than three hours would not be effective. She recommended that the Interim Report be the first item on the agenda.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
