Minutes of a Public Meeting
PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED SUMMARY
OF A PUBLIC INPUT MEETING,
HELD IN THE TOWN OF PAYSON, FOR THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
5:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 28, 1999
Payson Town Hall
303 North Beeline Highway
Payson, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a Public Meeting at 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 28, 1999 with Co-Chairperson Martin Shultz presiding. Other members in attendance were Cecil Antone, Lisa Atkins, Sheldon Miller, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman and Frank Thorwald. Also present were Stephanie Bondeson, ADOT Project Manager for the task force, and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor.
Welcome, Introductions
Mr. Martin Shultz called the meeting to order. Each member in attendance introduced himself or herself and provided a brief description of their background and responsibilities in regards to the task force. Mr. Shultz provided attendee’s with a brief history of the task force and its charge.
Comments from Local Elected Officials and from the Public
Mr. Ray Schum spoke regarding the need for a loop road on the southeast corner of town. He also suggested there be two right-hand turns at the junction of Highway 87 and S.R. 260. He stated that he feels, because these are state routes, Payson should only be responsible for paying for any work required to make a left-hand turn on Longhorn.
Mr. Shultz asked for Mr. Schum’s reaction to the construction on the Beeline over the past couple years. Mr. Schum indicated he was pleased with the construction stating that the increase in revenues it has created has been beneficial. He warned, however, that adequate arteries have to be provided to handle the increase in traffic.
Ms. Mary Peters confirmed for Mr. Schum that the Beeline is fully funded within the next year and that construction should be completed by spring 2001.
Mr. Schum explained, in response to Mr. Shultz’s question regarding a transit system, that currently the senior center provides transportation for disabled seniors.
Mr. Chuck Busby was introduced and stated that, looking at the next 20 years, Highway 95 is going to need to be increased to four lanes, at a minimum, and made an all-weather road. He also suggested that a closer route to Lake Havasu be created. He cited the right turn where 95 turns off of 72 to go south as another area of concern. In regards to a transit system, Mr. Busby explained that Quartzite has a town van which provides transportation to those in need on a donation basis. He stated he feels this fits their needs well, although in the future he would like to see large parking lots created outside of town with bus routes provided for people during the busy winter season.
Mr. Bob Davis, Director of Public Works for Pinal County, highlighted problems the county works department has encountered and suggested ways that the task force can assist. Areas he touched on included providing the means and funding to adequately develop interior county transportation corridors, maintenance of interstates and highways and finding an expedient, low cost method to acquire right of way from the state land department. Mr. Davis suggested that adequate funding and incentives be provided to help counties with their alternate transportation needs. He also requested that formulas for allocating funds allow for a growth factor. He stated in response to Mr. Shultz’s inquiry as to growth rate, that Pinal County has the third largest population in the state for counties and its growth matches that of Maricopa County on a percentage basis.
Mr. Jim Shipman asked that Mr. Davis expand on the alternative funding he mentioned. Mr. Davis explained that due to the great distances involved in Pinal County, that alternate transportation would be very expensive. He stated that assistance with funding and incentives would entice counties to place more emphasis on this issue.
Mr. Ingo Radicke questioned Mr. Davis as to whether Pinal County charges anything for growth and costs. Mr. Davis stated that counties, by Arizona statute, cannot charge impact fees. Mr. Radicke further inquired as to whether Mr. Davis would support legislation if the committee were to go on record sometime. Mr. Davis stated that, while he could not speak for the Board of Supervisors, he would personally support anything that would give the county more transportation dollars. Mr. Davis clarified for Mr. Shultz that cities can and do charge impact fees, but that counties cannot, by law, charge impact fees.
Mr. Rene Redondo mentioned the fact that Pima County charges development impact fees and questioned how that could be. Mr. Davis restated that it is against the law for counties to charge impact fees and Mr. Shultz stated that there may be circumstances in Pima County where an ordinance was passed. Mr. Shultz suggested that additional information on this matter be obtained.
Mr. Cliff Potts gave a brief description of the Northern Gila County Highway Committee. He stated that Arizona’s rural network of highways act as primary corridors linking Arizona with other states and commerce and that they need constant upgrading. Mr. Potts also touched on the issue of a bypass in Payson. He stated that any bypass created should have controlled access that would compliment the community. He explained that planning for future corridors is an absolute necessity. Mr. Potts also touched on the issue of a local transit system that would assist the senior population and the handicapped in traveling both around town and to the valley.
Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Potts to expand on the issue of a bypass and its effect on rural economic development. Mr. Potts explained that, while the citizens and the business community are not crying for a bypass currently, they will be soon. He recommended that everyone involved be part of a very intense planning process to come up with solutions to the problems businesses that rely on the diverted traffic would then face.
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Potts to elaborate on the need for resources to do planning. Mr. Potts explained that people prefer actually doing a project rather than planning and looking at the impacts of the project. He suggested that some sort of joint funding be considered.
Mr. Frank Thorwald questioned Mr. Potts as to the degree of congestion in Payson as compared to other cities. Mr. Potts stated that it is an escalating problem that, within the next five years, may become extreme.
Mr. Shultz stated that he was given the impression that Payson and Pinal and Gila counties were not coordinating efforts within the region. Mr. Potts stated that, while there was not an antagonistic attitude, in his opinion, there was no formal regional planning cooperation. Mr. Davis stated that he believed there was cooperation within Pinal County. Mr. Potts responded that between the transportation advisory committee and CAAG committee there has been good cooperation, but in terms of trying to come up with a regional plan for Gila County roads and the municipalities, there hasn’t been.
Mr. Dean Giles stated that resources continue to be a primary concern on the state highway system and that the help program is a good step forward in trying to address this concern. He stated that, through the regional transportation committee, a transportation improvement program has been created, but that a lot of needs are still unfulfilled. Mr. Giles also stated that additional regional planning resources are needed to adequately cover and plan for alternative modes of transportation in the two-county area.
In response to Mr. Shultz’s request, Mr. Giles provided a brief explanation of the membership of CAAG.
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Giles to elaborate on what methods would be acceptable in terms of generating additional resources. Mr. Giles stated that both counties have passed a half-cent transportation excise tax and that Payson and Apache Junction have adopted developers’ fees. Mr. Redondo inquired as to how the funds generated by the half-cent sales tax were distributed back out. Mr. Giles explained that in Gila County, the county distributes the money through its supervisorial district and it is not shared with the municipalities. In Pinal county, the three supervisorial districts conduct, through an advisory committee, planning of the half cent sales tax within those districts as well as a distribution to each individual municipality.
Mr. Bill Feldmeier suggested that local communities and counties will have to cooperate to enhance the available dollars for improvements, and that competition and fighting will only create obstacles. He recommended a statewide increase in gas tax and that ADOT create a separate pool of money that cannot be touched unless it is used for a partnership with ADOT to improve state highways within local regions. Mr. Feldmeier further suggested that local government be able to increase fuel taxes within their own jurisdictions. Mr. Feldmeier stated that, in deference to earlier comments, Yavapai County has instituted an impact fee, which is devoted entirely to regional transportation.
Mr. Redondo asked Mr. Feldmeier if he felt elected officials should be given the authority to increase fuel taxes without going to a public vote. Mr. Feldmeier stated he would have no problem with that.
Mr. Radicke asked Mr. Feldmeier what Yavapai County charges its impact fees for. Mr. Feldmeier explained that counties are only allowed to create impact fees for very specific reasons. The main purpose for which impact fees can be created is transportation and Yavapai County created that fee on all new residential structures that are developed within the county. Mr. Feldmeier further stated that the impact fees are assessed only in areas of the county that are growing at the most rapid rate.
Mr. Feldmeier clarified for Mr. Shultz that the statute regarding county impact fees is far narrower than for cities and towns. Counties are limited primarily to transportation. Mr. Shultz requested that copies of both statutes be supplied to the task force members.
Mr. Thorwald asked for clarification as to Mr. Feldmeier’s scope of partnerships. He questioned whether it included partnerships between cities, counties and ADOT or private partnerships as well. Mr. Feldmeier stated it is all encompassing.
Mr. Dan Basinski, president of the Gila County Trails Association, spoke on the issue of bicycles. He stated that the half lane on the right side of S.R. 260, which allowed horses, pedestrians and bicycles to easily commute between Payson and Star Valley is no longer there. He stated he wants the lane to be reinstated. He also recommended that the areas north and east of Payson be widened to accommodate cyclists. He questioned the task force as to what plans are being formulated and what actions taken to see that alternative methods of transportation, cycling in particular, are promoted.
Mr. Radicke stated that the board is already working to see that both sidewalks and bicycle lanes are included in community enhancements.
Mr. Tom Foster explained that the half lane on S.R. 260 is currently being used as an interim left turn lane for the Rim development. Once the new intersection is built, the development is required to provide an eight-foot shoulder on each side. Mr. Foster did not know how long it would be before the intersection would be built.
Mr. Redondo asked Mr. Basinski his opinion on the possibility of a tax for bicyclists. Mr. Basinski stated that adding a tax at the time of purchase or requiring bicycles to be licensed may be a possibility, but that he hadn’t given the issue much thought.
Mr. Thorwald commented that in Virginia bicycle paths are off the road where feasible. Mr. Basinski stated this would certainly be better from a safety standpoint.
Ms. Peters brought up the proposed project of creating trails for cyclists, hikers and horses out of abandoned rail lines. Mr. Basinski stated that the project is great except that there are not enough abandoned railbeds in Arizona.
Mr. Rick Powers commented on the need to look at improving some of the tribal and BIA roads. He also submitted a letter from a citizen outlining needed improvements on Arizona’s highways. Mr. Powers suggested that the task force consider a divided highway on U.S. 60 as part of the districts 20-year plan and that S.R. 260 be widened to four lanes on into Show Low. Widening S.R. 73 and Highway 77 into the Whiteriver area are also improvements that Mr. Powers mentioned he would like to see addressed.
Mr. Thorwald inquired as to what it would take to get some of the roads in the district up to the standards they were originally built at. Ms. Peters stated that standards have changed dramatically over time and that roadways usually cannot be brought up to more current standards without doing a major reconstruction project. She explained that the state tries to maintain roads at at least 90 percent of their original standard with about 65 percent of that funded by the state. Mr. Shultz stated that the task force is looking at whether to recommend that that percentage be increased.
Mr. Thorwald questioned Mr. Powers as to his opinion on the decentralization of planning for road systems. Mr. Powers stated that he feels the COGs and Phoenix work well together and that it is more an issue of funding to implement the plans that have been worked out. Mr. Thorwald further questioned Mr. Powers as to whether that funding also impacts the level of quality staff that ADOT has out in the field and their workloads and how that compares to the private sector. Mr. Powers stated that both ADOT staff and consulting staff are needed, but was not sure what the proper balance would be. Mr. Jeff Swan stated that there should be some decentralization with some resources supplied at the district level. He suggested that the issue be given serious consideration.
Mr. Foster commented that they are losing a lot of in-house people due to inadequate wages, which makes it necessary to use outside consultants more often. Ms. Peters explained that state employees overall are more than 20 percent behind on a wage basis when you factor in benefits, with engineering salaries at greater than 30 percent behind the private sector. She stated that a proposal is being created that would address this issue.
Mr. Stanley Gibson, chairman of the Globe Miami Highway Committee, commented that the Dial-A-Ride program in the Globe Miami area works very well and could be implemented in Payson and other small communities where bus services are not feasible. He also briefly addressed the issues they are facing on highway 60 and S.R. 77
Mr. Clarence Begay, road manager for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, spoke regarding S.R. 73. He stated S.R. 73 was built in the late 1950s and that he would like to see improvements on this road accelerated.
In response to Mr. Thorwald's inquiry, Mr. Begay briefly explained the BIA funding mechanism and the ingress/egress issues brought up by the Rainbow Fire incident.
Mr. Cecil Antone stated that they are trying to develop a formula to seek funding for all reservations through the whole nation. He explained that the money currently distributed through TEA 21 is put toward school bus routes and major thoroughfares. He also mentioned the turnback recently done with ADOT where the tribe will take on the maintenance of S.R. 187, but ADOT will first provide money to upgrade it.
Mr. Thorwald inquired as to the amount of funding that is available for BIA roads in comparison to other roads throughout the state. Mr. Begay stated that based on the distribution formula, the White Mountain Apache tribe receives 2.4 million dollars a year for road construction and maintenance.
Mayor Roy Chavez stated that his primary concern is the Highway 60 issue from Florence Junction to Superior. He explained that increased growth rates in the metropolitan areas stimulate an added burdened on the rural infrastructure. Mayor Chavez stated that the short-term safety measures that have been taken, including a decreased speed limit and a special enforcement area, have been working. Mayor Chavez also highlighted the cooperative efforts of Superior and the Department of Transportation in the creation of a roadside rest stop in Superior.
Mr. Shultz inquired as to the ultimate recommendations for improvement on Highway 60. Mr. Powers stated there are about 12 different alternatives currently being considered, but that the project would be a four-lane divided highway as it comes into Superior and would then transition into a five lane section once in the town of Superior.
Closing comments and adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
A complete transcript of this meeting is available for review, upon request.
