CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
EXECUTIVE BOARD
Yavapai County Boardroom
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
City
of Prescott
Town
of Chino Valley Karen
Fann, Vice Chair
Town
of Prescott Valley Mike
Flannery, Chairman
Transportation
Board Dick
Hileman by proxy Sandra Gilbert
Yavapai
County
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
N/A
STAFF PRESENT:
CYMPO
Administrator
CYMPO
Administrative Assistant Anne
Confer
OTHERS PRESENT:
Phil
Bourdon, Yavapai County Craig
McConnell, City of
Margot
Champagne, Taxpayer Carol
Springer,
Bob
Edwards, Prescott Valley Larry
Tarkowski,
Mike
Flannery, Prescott Valley A.J.
Vilardo, PhD., Medical Reserve Corps
Joe
Hughes, RTAC Mike
Willett,
AGENDA ITEMS
CALL TO ORDER Mike
Flannery, Chairman
With a
quorum established, Chairman Flannery called the meeting to order at
1. PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman
Flannery asked Vice-Chair Fann to lead the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. INTRODUCTIONS
OF BOARD MEMBERS
The
Board Members introduced themselves, followed by self-introductions from the
members of the audience.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. In
response to a question from Mr. Flannery, Mr. Shambaugh said it is possible there
would be a meeting next month. He would
check to see if there are any agenda items for that meeting.
B. Mr.
Shambaugh announced that all member agencies had submitted their applications
for LTAF II. The MPO sent the
applications for Chino Valley, Prescott and Prescott Valley to ADOT; the County
is submitting through NACOG. All the
agencies are using the funds for their transit voucher programs. Mr. Shambaugh said this amounts to about
$220,000 for transit services.
For
future reference, Mr. Shambaugh said that non-profit transit services, while
not eligible to apply directly for LTAF funds, can request from an agency part
or all of their allocation, and that transit planning studies are eligible for
these funds. Mr. Brownlow commented
that, based on a lawsuit the County recently lost, for-profits may also request
the funds; agencies cannot discriminate between non-profit and for-profit. He noted that the County is appealing this
decision, but as it stands both types of agencies must be considered.
4. CALL TO
THE PUBLIC
Mr.
Vilardo commented that he would like to see free bus service provided.
5. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF JUNE 16 AND JULY 21 2004, CYMPO EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Chairman Flannery reported
that, per his research into Robert’s
Rules of Order, meeting minutes are approved by the organization, not the
individuals. Therefore, the Minutes of
June 16, 2004 can be approved at a meeting where a quorum exists, regardless of
whether or not the members who attended that meeting are present.
Minutes of
Mr. Roecker introduced a
motion to approve the Minutes of June 16, 2004 as submitted. Ms. Fann seconded the motion, which passed by
unanimous vote.
Minutes of
Ms. Fann introduced a motion
to approve the Minutes of July 21, 2004 as submitted. Mr. Roecker seconded the motion, which passed
by unanimous vote.
6. DISCUSSION OF THE RURAL TRANSPORTATION
ADVOCACY COUNCIL (RATC)
&
7. DISCUSSION OF NOVEMBER ELECTIONS AND
EFFECTS UPON RURAL ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION ISSUES – Joe Hughes
Mr. Hughes started with a
history of the RATC, which was formed following the 2001 legislative
session. After a long history of the
rural counties losing on some pretty big issues, it was decided they needed someone
at the Capital to look after their interests regarding transportation. The members of the Rural Transportation
Advocacy Council consist of the chairs of the three small metropolitan planning
organizations (CYMPO, FMPO and YMPO) as well as the chairs of the four rural
councils of government (SEAGO, CAG, NACOG and WACOG). Overall, RATC represents 13 of the 15
counties and 65 rural communities.
As liaison for the RATC, Mr.
Hughes said that his job is to keep an eye on the legislature to make sure that
rural Arizona’s interests are looked after.
The power is having the rural elected officials informed. There have been some good successes due to
this political muscle bearing on legislators.
In response to a comment from
Ms. Champagne in the audience, Mr. Hughes said that this region is and is not
“rural,” but they are better off being with the rural communities than with
Phoenix. Concerning transit, he said it
is not going to happen if there is no money for it; getting that money out of
Maricopa County is his biggest challenge.
Mr. Roecker asked how Mr.
Hughes would work with Mr. Shambaugh.
Mr. Hughes said that he works with all the staff of the MPOs and
COGs. He said it is an information
sharing relationship. He reports to the
Chairmen and the elected officials, but he would be ineffective if he is not
also working with staff, who are, by and large, the technical knowledge of any
organization. He said he sees himself
working hand-in-hand with Mr. Shambaugh on issues that are larger than just a
simple region, that are of regional significance.
Legislative Success
Mr. Hughes said that there
were 1,225 pieces of legislations introduced in the last legislative session;
rural Arizona had five priorities set by the RTAC, which were 1) the preservation
of HURF; 2) preservation of the current composition of the State Transportation
Board (7 members, 4 from rural Arizona); 3) secure long-term funding for public
transit program; 4) funding future transportation needs; and 5) secure funding
for rural and small metro commercial air service. He shared some successes from that session:
HB 2626 – Allowed counties to go into agreements
with ADOT for acceleration of right-of-way.
Supervisor Davis, who was on the RTAC year before last, put a lot of
work into this program.
Maricopa
Half-Cent Extension – If that fund had dried up, rather than canceling
projects, Maricopa County would have taken monies from the rural funds.
Pima Extension –
Same situation as Maricopa.
Budget – For
aviation, there had been a diversion of flight fund money into the general
fund; RTAC pushed to have it returned, which it was. These funds are critical for infrastructure
and operations.
Present/Future
Mr. Hughes said that the
outlook is grim, but one bit of good news is that the economy is looking good
and revenues are flowing in as they should.
The “Big 3”, which are individual income tax, corporate income tax, and
sales tax, are up a total of 13.8% above projection. For cities and towns this translates to an
8.5% increase in their transaction privilege tax. The Governor has already committed to leave
state shared revenues alone.
Mr. Hughes then explained how
the composition of the legislature changed as a result of the recent
elections. One Democrat was added to the
House, and one lost in the Senate; this is a much more conservative legislature
than they have had in the past. Mr.
Hughes sees this budget battle as a long, drawn-out issue, with no one wanting
to come together, although eventually they will have to.
Regarding the leadership
positions, Mr. Hughes said that for the House, Jim Weiers would be the Speaker
again; he had been Speaker before Jake Flake.
Steve Tully will be Majority Leader and Gary Pierce the Whip. Mr. Pierce was the Chairman of House
Transportation last session and was helpful in getting the MAG half-cent bill
passed. He is also a former supervisor
from Yuma County. Mr. Hughes said it is
a shame he will be leaving transportation; the candidates to replace him are
not promising for the rural areas.
The Senate is pretty much as
it was before. Senator Bennett was
reelected President, and Senator Bee is Majority Leader, both of whom are good
for rural Arizona. Senator Tibshraeny,
former Mayor of Chandler, was elected Whip and could also be helpful to rural
communities. Previously, Transportation
and Natural Resources was one committee, now they will be divided; those
leaderships are not yet confirmed.
Legislative Priorities
Mr. Hughes said the RTAC
would be meeting next month and will set the priorities for 2005. Because this is a very conservative
legislature, one priority will be to ensure that the right things are paid for
out of the right revenue streams. For
example, HURF dollars do not need to be used to pay for DPS. Another priority will be to ask the
legislature to put before the voters the idea of raising the bonding capacity
for local government from the current 6% to 20%. This one example of how they
are pursuing every avenue to fund rural infrastructure needs.
In response to a question from
Chair Flannery, Mr. Hughes said the bonding capacity would be for public works
and public safety. At the county level,
the capacity is currently at 15%, so this will raise their capacity as well.
Regarding the reauthorization
of the federal bill, Mr. Hughes said they are still waiting to see what will
happen. It is possible they could get
something out in a lame duck session. If
that does not work out, they will have to retool it come January; it is a new
Congress so they will have to start all over.
Mr. Hughes said the RTAC has been working closely with Congressman Young
from Alaska, who is Chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure/Commerce
Committee. The Chairman of the same
committee in the Senate is also from Alaska, and they will try to work with him
as well.
ADOT Rural Consultation Program
Mr. Hughes said RTAC
negotiated with ADOT for this Rural Consultation Program, and is an example of
how working together as rural Arizona can get things done that might not have
happened in the past. One of the key
components they asked for was to have ADOT go to all 13 counties to meet with
elected officials. Mr. Hughes said that
Mr. Shambaugh was instrumental in getting ADOT to include the MPO members
involved as well as the elected officials.
QUESTIONS
1. Mr. Willett asked how much sales tax Pima would be
requesting. Mr. Hughes said they are
proposing a half-cent sales tax like Maricopa County. Historically, they have not done well with
that at the ballot box, and it will be up in March. They will have to wait and see.
2. Chair Flannery asked for a recap of the transit issue. Mr. Hughes said one of the big components was
LTAF II, which was scheduled to sunset in September 2004. The RTAC thought it might be a good idea to
bring it back and contacted ADOT. They
found out that it was funded by several revenue streams, and only the part that
was funded out of the general fund was going away. The Powerball receipts over a certain
threshold were also part of LTAF II, and that was not going away. This source fluctuates with sales, whereas
the general fund monies were guaranteed, however, they did not want to risk
losing the Powerball revenues by asking for reauthorization of LTAF II.
Mr. Hughes added that ADOT is
using some pilot programs for transit that could be used for “best case
practices” and they wanted them to get a couple of years experience to show
that is something that LTAF II can fund.
Their data would augment the research from RTAC.
3. Mr. Roecker asked how many rural areas currently have public
transportation. Mr. Hughes said that
outside the Pima and Maricopa areas, regions with a special program include
Flagstaff, Yuma, possibly Sierra Vista, Cottonwood, and Bullhead City. He said a lot of communities use non-profit
vans and such. The group discussed
rates, profits, and subsidies. Mr.
Willett said that ADOT wants a 17% recovery rate; if that is not achieved, the
agency has to make up the difference.
8. STATE ROUTE 89A TRAFFIC INTERCHANGES AT
SR89 AND VIEWPOINT
Mr. Shambaugh reported that
the TAC has been analyzing this problem for the past two months. At this point, the recommendation is that
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for FY04 and FY05 go towards the
89/89A T.I., and the funds for FY06 and FY07 go towards the T.I. at
89A/Viewpoint. The rationale behind this
is that the engineering plans are nearly complete for 89/89A and additional
funding would expedite entry into the ADOT construction program and,
ultimately, construction. In addition,
assigning two years of funding to the Viewpoint T.I. would then spur
development of the engineering design plans for that project.
Mr. Brownlow asked if they
had looked at the Side Road interchange and the relationship between the city
and the county. Mr. Shambaugh said it
was discussed at the TAC and the understanding was that the funding for that
interchange is going to be between the City of Prescott and the County, with
some developer participation.
Mr. Roecker commented that
these are important projects and they need to keep them moving and get them
done.
MOTION
Mr. Brownlow introduced a
motion to approve using STP funds for FY04 and FY05 towards the 89/89A T.I.,
and STP funds for FY06 and FY07 towards the 89A/Viewpoint T.I. Mr. Roecker seconded the motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote, with Mr. Brownlow, Ms. Fann, Chair Flannery, Ms. Gilbert, and
Mr. Roecker in favor; no one opposed.
9. AMENDMENT #1 TO INTERIM FY 2004-2008
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Shambaugh said that the
purpose of this amendment is to bring the cycling of the TIP to be compatible
with the Statewide Improvement Program (STIP).
Essentially, the MPO’s TIP becomes part of the STIP, and the TIP lapses
when the FHWA, and in some cases the FTA, approval for the STIP lapses. He said they need to make certain they do not
get into a situation where they have projects moving forward toward
construction and they lapse because of the frequency of the projects not
matching.
Mr. Shambaugh called
attention to the spreadsheet in the packets, which lists projects and the years
in which they occur. These projects were
based on the Board-approved TIP FY03.
Mr. Shambaugh explained that for federal purposes, the TIP only needs to
cover a priority list of projects for three years; this sheet shows five
years. However, the projects must be
financially constrained; they need to demonstrate the projects that can be
implemented using current revenue sources, and those that can be implemented
using proposed revenue sources.
Mr. Shambaugh said that this
product is much closer to being a management document than the previous
document. They have put those projects
not currently being worked on into an “Unfunded” category because it was felt they were important and should be
identified.
Mr. Shambaugh further
explained that Congress has not reauthorized the transportation legislation, so
they are using an estimate for the STP funds, $509,000, which they have been
using for the last couple of years. Once
the reauthorization takes place, they will have to adjust the TIP
accordingly. Every project that is
listed in ADOT’s construction program within the planning boundaries is listed
in Amendment #1, including the T.I.s approved in Item #8 tonight, and all the
enhancement awards. The TAC recommends
approval.
Ms. Fann asked why there are
both a FY04-08 TIP and an Interim FY05-09 TIP. Mr.
Shambaugh explained that they are trying to get the Amendment #1 and the FY05-09 TIP back on the proper schedule; soon work will
need to begin on the FY06-10 TIP.
Ms. Fann noted that not all
the projects listed on the Resolution, coming up later in the agenda, are
listed in the TIP. Mr. Shambaugh said
they should be in there, but might be under a different name. Also, the projects in the Resolution are in
the ADOT construction program, but are not all within the planning boundary and
therefore would not appear in the TIP.
Mr. Brownlow asked if the MPO
is responsible for reviewing all projects for the cities, towns and
county. Mr. Shambaugh said that all
federally and/or state-funded projects must be in the TIP. A project that is entirely locally funded,
with no state or federal funds involved, is not required to be in the TIP. However, it has been discussed that those
routes of regional significance, even if locally funded, should be
included. Although this topic has not
been decided at the
Mr. Brownlow asked for an
explanation of what good the MPO is for the region and how much money is
available annually. Mr. Shambaugh
explained that the TIP is a document that is identifying projects that are
federally and state funded, that is a commitment to the public that they will
be built. Annually, there is
approximately $509,000 in federal funds (STP), but it also includes other
projects, such as projects on State highways and any transportation enhancement
awards a community might receive.
Mr. Brownlow asked if the MPO
could stop a project a community was working on with the State. Mr. Shambaugh said the potential is there,
because there has to be concurrence on projects. The Board discussed the role of the MPO and
why it exists. Ms. Fann said that
previously, they were under NACOG, which handles all of northern Arizona, and
this community was not getting a lot of that money. Now that this MPO exists, the funds for this
region are taken from the COG and given directly to the control of the MPO, so
the local governments can decide how their money is spent. Also, this money cannot be diverted out of
the local area. Ms. Gilbert explained
that the MPO is an umbrella for all the communities. The member entities decide where they want
the money to go; the MPO is a pass-through for the funding.
Chair Flannery said one
concern is the reporting requirement. He
asked about including local projects of regional significance, and why that
would not be required. Ms. Gilbert
explained that it is a rule of the State that all projects in the region be
included in the TIP. But the decision is
left up to the member entities to make that choice. Other MPOs include all their projects in
their TIP, except the subprograms, like bridges and safety.
Chair Flannery said that they
were hesitant to include all projects because then they would have to do
amendments. Ms. Gilbert said that is not
a problem for the State. The MPOs can
make as many amendments as are necessary, as often as they need them. She says that gives the MPO local area a
document that records what is going on in their region, and gives the feds and
State a clear picture of what is happening in that region.
Mr. Tarkowski, the TAC
Chairman, said that the TAC very clearly expressed a level of discomfort with
the reporting of all their local projects and questioned why it is important
that they be in the TIP. Although no decision
has been made as yet, they intend to come back and address this issue at some
point.
Chair Flannery asked if only
constrained projects are supposed to be included, because he noticed several
items that have no funding designated except the total cost. Mr. Shambaugh said that they are anticipating
tightening this up as they progress; once the transportation plan is done and
the updated TIP is based upon the plan, then the TIP will be tightened up.
Mr. McConnell asked that the
first item in 2005, Willow Creek widening, be removed since there is no federal
or state funding involved. He requested
the same for Gail Gardner/Williamson Valley in 2008 for the same reason.
MOTION
Mr. Roecker introduced a
motion to approve Amendment #1 to the FY04–08 TIP as presented and as amended
by Mr. McConnell. Ms. Fann seconded the
motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote, with Mr. Brownlow, Ms. Fann, Chair Flannery, Ms. Gilbert, and
Mr. Roecker in favor; no one opposed.
10. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERIM FY 2005-2009
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Shambaugh reported that
this product has also been thoroughly discussed in the
Ms. Fann suggested that Mr.
McConnell would probably want the Iron Springs project taken out of this TIP
along with the two projects removed from the 2004-2008 TIP. Mr.
McConnell confirmed this.
Ms. Fann asked if it would be
possible to move a project from one year to another within the TIP if funding
were to become available sooner than anticipated. Mr. Shambaugh said absolutely that can be
done.
Chair Flannery asked if the
Side Road project, the last project in 2005, should be taken out because it was
his understanding that this would be all local and developer funding. Mr. Bourdon confirmed this.
Mr. Tarkowski suggested that
all the entities be listed as sponsors for the Glassford Hill project in the
“Unfunded” category. All agreed that it
should be labeled “Regional” for sponsorship.
MOTION
Ms. Fann introduced a motion
to approve the Interim FY2005-2009
TIP as presented and as amended. Mr.
Roecker seconded the motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by unanimous
vote, with Mr. Brownlow, Ms. Fann, Chair Flannery, Ms. Gilbert, and Mr. Roecker
in favor; no one opposed.
11. SR89/SR89A
Mr. Shambaugh reported that,
given the extremely limited construction dollars available statewide, the ADOT
districts have been told they have a small number of project requests they can
submit for consideration into the update of the construction program. The Prescott District has a large number of
customers, including NACOG, the Verde Valley TPO, part of the
Representatives of the
various organizations met, discussed and agreed upon some recommended projects
for the FY06-10 program. The
Yavapai County Board of Supervisors has acted upon that list by
Resolution. Mr. Shambaugh said that the
CYMPO Resolution included in the Board Members’ packets would complete the
process. He said it is anticipated that
the process of jointly (CYMPO, VVTPO and NACOG) developing recommendations
would occur annually. He further
explained that this year’s project recommendations are within the MPO planning
area, however, in the future this might not always be the case.
Mr. Shambaugh noted that this
Resolution differs from the County’s in that this one includes a pledge of two
years’ worth of funding to the T. I. project at SR89/89A.
Chair Flannery explained this
is the result of a consultation session with ADOT in the Verde Valley at which
Mr. Foster, the Prescott DE, suggested it would be helpful if the Yavapai
County region could get together. In the
consultation session, it was demonstrated that because the Verde Valley has
their issues and this area has their issues, there is a flux of people that
move back and forth, creating a lot of shared transportation issues. One example is Highway 169, for which the two
regions are now going to start sharing responsibility.
Chair Flannery further
explained that the reason resolutions are suggested is because rarely do you
find two entities in an area that are willing to say they are going to work
together on something like this. Since the
Board of Supervisors signed their resolution, it is appropriate that the CYMPO
do the same to let them know we are working together. He said he feels this is a first step toward
a cooperative effort.
MOTION
Mr. Brownlow introduced a
motion that the CYMPO endorse Resolution 2004-01 as presented. Mr. Roecker seconded the motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote, with Mr. Brownlow, Ms. Fann, Chair Flannery, Ms. Gilbert, and
Mr. Roecker in favor; no one opposed.
12. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE
Chair Flannery called
attention to the proposed meeting schedule for 2005 in the Board Members’
packets. He asked if there were any
problems with or changes to the proposal.
MOTION
Mr. Roecker introduced a
motion to accept the Executive Board meeting schedule for 2005 as
presented. Mr. Brownlow seconded the
motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote, with Mr. Brownlow, Ms. Fann, Chair Flannery, Ms. Gilbert, and
Mr. Roecker in favor; no one opposed.
13. NEXT
MEETING
Mr. Shambaugh said that it is
possible there would be a meeting in December.
He will notify all agencies when it is determined whether or not there
are any agenda items for that meeting.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further
business, Mr. Roecker introduced a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Brownlow seconded the motion, which
passed by unanimous vote.
The meeting adjourned at
###