Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
9 a.m., Thursday, December 28, 2000
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower, 1700 W. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor, State Reception Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance Committee met in official session for a meeting at 9 a.m., Thursday, December 28, 2000, with Chairperson Kurt Davis presiding. Other Committee members present were: Lisa Atkins, Priscilla Cornelio, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke, and Jim Shipman. Others present were: Alan Maguire, John Carlson, Mary Peters, Marty Shultz and Matt Carpenter.
Pledge of Allegiance, Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. and all joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for November 9, 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 revisions made to the two alternative governance structures agreed upon at the previous meeting. He first presented the revised state structure, explaining in depth the changes that were made. He summarized that the revised state structure achieves the goal of restructuring the State Transportation Board to a certain extent while clarifying responsibilities and adding additional planning and policy requirements to the structure. He reiterated the fact that the revised structure adds the concept of the policy statement as being a distinct document from the State Transportation Plan.
Mr. Davis requested that the document reflect that the committee has considered numerous approaches and received input from professionals in the field, including ADOT, counties and the COGs / MPOs.
Committee members agreed that the renewal date for the State Transportation Policy Statement should be every two years. Ms. Cornelio suggested, and committee members agreed, that the local transportation plans be required bi-annually in the opposite year of the renewal date for the State Transportation Policy Statement.
Mr. Radicke restated his opposition to the provision for nine State Transportation Board members as opposed to the current seven and asked for an explanation as to why it was felt that nine board members would serve the state better than seven. Mr. Maguire explained the perception by some that the current district structure of the board has caused some board members at times to act as representatives of their region versus the entire state. To address this perception and concern the proposed state structure in essence removes the specific regional appointment process yet maintains an urban/rural balance, and the number nine worked the best to keep this balance of a five/four rural/urban split, which is consistent with the mileage distribution of the state highway system.
Mr. Shipman asked if the state structure itself moderates the parochialism question, because the board would be addressing policy rather than specific plans. Mr. Maguire noted that the revised structure creates a board that approves the policy statement as well as the transportation plan.
Mr. Davis stated his preference for a stronger agency model of a state structure as well as a regional appointment process or the board with five regional members and two members each from Pima and Maricopa counties. He compared the State Transportation Board to the Board of Regents for the state universities, and stated that he felt the board should be a policy board. Mr. Maguire provided examples of how the proposed state structure is analogous to the Board of Regents. He recommended that the committee members consider the regional structure before making a final decision on this issue.
Ms. Cornelio stated her support for a nine-member board, but said she would like to hear the perception from the public when the recommendations are taken to the public meetings.
Mr. Maguire emphasized that the proposed state structure does not diminish any of the responsibilities of the current board but adds new responsibilities, i.e. the requirement for a policy statement, approval of the long-range multi-modal plan, and the approval of transportation performance measures and the associated data collection. They would retain the responsibility for contract awards.
Ms. Peters commented that the discussion goes to the same discussion at other committees and the full task force relating to accountability and authority. She suggested that accountability should fall to the department to carry out the policy direction of the State Transportation Board. She feels that the issue of contract award is more of a tactical operation than a strategic operation, and the committee could recommend methods of reporting to the board by the agency that contracts are being awarded consistent with the policy direction set by the board. She also believes this approach gets the board above the fray of which projects go where and allows the board to focus more on policy and a sense of direction.
Mr. Olney agreed with Ms. Peters on the issue of accountability and authority. He cautioned that the structure adopted should ensure that the person who has the responsibility should also have the authority to carry out that responsibility. He agreed with the concept of the board setting the policies and the department carrying them out.
Ms. Cornelio asked if the changes recommended in the state structure would require legislative approval, and Mr. Maguire answered affirmatively but explained why he believed that process would be minimal. He added that if the model presented was adopted there would have to be some kind of re-allocation or re-assignment process relative to certain routes in the state highway system. He felt this was more a transitional issue than a policy issue to be addressed by the committees and the task force. Mr. Carlson confirmed that implementing the model into statute would not be considered a massive re-write.
Mr. Maguire reviewed the regional structure, again noting the changes made per discussion at the previous meeting.
Committee members and Mr. Maguire discussed the coordination necessary between the regional and the state structures. They discussed at length the handling of major regional facilities, including airports and interstate highways that serve two distinct roles. It was generally agreed that these facilities would be classified and handled at the state level. The issue of flow and use of funds was also discussed relative to this topic. It was established that aviation would be included in the policy statement and incorporated into the long-range transportation plan. It was agreed that the final funding discussion would be impacted by the final revenue structure proposed by the full task force. Mr. Davis stated that the assumption has been that the funding would flow with the authority, whether it is regional or state funding. All agreed that under the governance structure proposed local and regional jurisdictions would still be able to generate and use their own funding sources, i.e. a local sales tax dedicated to improving local aviation infrastructure.
Mr. Maguire noted that the task force will have to make broad policy decisions on funding allocations, and this decision will link to the governance structure. He added that there was nothing in the governance structures proposed that was inconsistent with the direction of the revenue committee.
Ms. Atkins expressed concern with arbitrary movement of funds versus movement of funds to where they are truly needed. She recommended that, for instance, economic analysis be performed by the department on roads of regional significance to determine where funding is absolutely essential. This would then be the standard to determine the shift of funds between the various levels of government.
Mr. Olney agreed with the need for more flexibility related to funding allocation.
Mr. Davis asked whether the committee should consider setting a minimum funding threshold to the region/district structure to preserve and expand the system of roads of regional significance.
Ms. Cornelio explained her concerns with and opposition to the regional/district concept.
Mr. Davis argued that the regional/district concept would be more accountable to the citizens; and, because of this new accountability, the taxpayers would be more likely to buy into any new revenue generating concepts.
Ms. Atkins expressed concern with creating an additional level of bureaucracy for local jurisdictions to have to work through in order to make transportation improvements in their area.
Ms. Peters explained that ADOT performs periodic public surveys and is perceived as doing a good job with respect to the operation of the system. There is less satisfaction with planning and prioritization of projects. She explained that there is a significant lack of understanding as to how these decisions are made.
Mr. Shipman expressed concern with how the new regional/district entity would impact the existing jurisdictions. Mr. Maguire explained that the concept simply provides for the transfer of revenues consistent with the transfer of authority and responsibility. Mr. Shipman then asked who would have ownership of the regional roads.
Mr. Olney stressed the importance of making sure the general public understands the system and processes.
In response to inquiry by Mr. Radicke, Mr. Davis explained his vision of how the existing councils of government and MPOs would relate to the proposed regional structure. He believed that these entities would remain an integral part of the decision making process in a region.
Committee members discussed at length the merits and disadvantages of the regional structure and the concerns with the current system from a regional point of view.
Mr. Maguire commented that there is an important distinction between good planning and authority. He believes that most people would agree that there is good regional planning taking place, but not a lot of good regional authority being exercised. Part of this is a result of the current COG/MPO system and the membership of those boards, who are elected officials representing individual jurisdictions.
Mr. Shipman suggested that a system of governance, which includes the election of regional boards, would not resolve the current systemic problems or achieve the objective of resolving regional transportation challenges.
Mr. Olney mentioned that he serves on a city transportation committee, and that committee also believes there is a need for some sort of regional transportation governance structure. He believes the regional board has some merit because it has the validation of an elected body. Mr. Shipman stated that this body would have to be accountable to a standard but asked where that standard would be set. Mr. Shipman indicated that he was not ready to support a regional/district structure.
Mr. Maguire specifically discussed how the two governance structures were linked.
Mr. Radicke asked which system would be more efficient and what the additional cost to establish and operate the district system would be. Mr. Maguire answered that it is reasonable to assume that there will be additional costs involved with establishing the district system; however, it would be difficult to quantify those costs with any level of certainty. He suggested that there is a tradeoff between cost effectiveness and efficiency. He stated that centralized planning is arguably less expensive but not necessarily better.
Ms. Peters summarized what she was hearing from the committee, a desire to move the policy, strategy and standard setting up to the state level while keeping the operational and tactical responsibility at the regional level and hold those people accountable. She asked if there is a way to push the policy, strategy and standard setting up but still maintain the operational responsibility for delivering within the existing structure. Ms. Peters outlined the level of planning that takes place at the state’s MPOs. She noted that it appears that the district system proposed would not be responsible for this type of planning.
Mr. Maguire stressed the need to be careful not to confuse the creation of the new district with some kind of wholesale disruption of the current governance/planning agency relationship. Currently MPOs and COGs own and operate nothing. They simply coordinate their activities with other governments. He stated that the proposed structure would only transfer responsibility from the local government to a regional structure without changing how the existing authorities interact.
Ms. Cornelio asked if the issues with roads of regional significance could be addressed at the state level to avoid creating a regional/district structure. Mr. Maguire recapped how the committee came to the point of a regional/district structure recommendation.
In response to a request about future direction by Ms. Atkins, Mr. Maguire enumerated issues yet to be addressed by the committee: 1) If the committee recommended the "blended" system, what would the districts look like? 2) If the committee recommended the "blended" system, re-write the recommendation as such and review it again to eliminate potential conflicts. Mr. Maguire suggested that the committee meet again before the January 12 full task force meeting. He felt that he could write the structure recommendation and provide it to committee members within a few days. He stated there might be some other issues the committee has put aside that it would now want to consider, such as the relationship between the district engineers and governance entities.
Mr. Olney suggested that Mr. Maguire disseminate the revised recommendation via e-mail. Committee members would then return their comments to Mr. Maguire and come to the next meeting prepared to finalize the recommendation.
Mr. Carlson offered to work with Mr. Maguire to come up with a couple of examples of how the recommendation would be practically applied and to provide this information as a supplement to the revised recommendation.
The group tentatively set the next meeting for the afternoon of January 8, 2001.
Mr. Shipman asked if the committee’s recommendation would also include some sort of direction relative to revenue opportunities at the district and/or state level. Mr. Maguire provided a couple of suggestions for incorporating this issue into the recommendation.
Mr. Maguire recapped the direction for proceeding.
Possible Discussion of Hypothetical Transportation Plans
Discussion of this agenda item was deferred to the tentatively scheduled January 8th meeting.
Call to the Public
There were no requests to speak.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:21 a.m.
KURT DAVIS, Governance Chairperson
