Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1180) 0. on of r 0 . � - Pima Association of Governments 5 -34 p. s 4 , � rt, Regional Assembly -4. .z; :!, ' 4' 177 N Church Ave., Suite 405 • Tucson AZ 85701 a , }„ i. ozi al me ,.. .„.) February 9, 2004 To: The Honorable Elected Officials for Pima County, City of Tucson, City of South Tucson, Town of Oro Valley, Town of Marana, Town of Sahuarita, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the Tohono O'odham Nation. From: Gary Hayes, Executive Director Subject: The PAG Regional Assembly held January 23, 2004. CC: City Managers, Town Managers, County Administrator, City/County/Town Clerks, Southern Arizona Legislative Delegation and other interested parties. Thanks to all of you who attended the PAG Regional Assembly that was held January 23, 2004. The Outstanding participation and discussion of regional issues helped make this Assembly an especially worthwhile event. Attached is a copy of the minutes from the meeting for your use. If you need additional information or copies of any of the materials distributed at the Assembly, please contact John Liosatos at 792-1093 x 517. Whether or not you attended the Assembly, we invite your input. You can send your comments to me via the address listed above or e-mail them to jliosatos@pagnet.org. Summary of Pima Association of Governments' PAG REGIONAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY 23,2004,6:30 P.M. At the Tucson Convention Center(MEETING ROOMS) 1. CALL TO ORDER Paul Loomis, Mayor of the Town of Oro Valley, serving as Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTIONS Town of Oro Valley Mayor Paul Loomis Vice-Mayor Werner Wolff Council Member Bart Rochman Council Member Richard Johnson Town Engineer Bill Jansen Town Clerk Kathy Cuvelier Town of Sahuarita Mayor Charles Oldham Town Manager Jim Stahle Town Clerk Sandra Olivas Town of Marana Vice-Mayor Herb Kai Council Member Carol McGorray Council Member Tim Escobedo Town Manager Mike Reuwsaat Public Works Director/Town Engineer Farhad Moghimi City of Tucson Vice—Mayor Fred Rondstadt Council Member Steve Leal Council Member Jose Ibarra Council Member Carol West Council Member Shirley Scott Council Member Kathleen Dunbar Assistant City Manager Benny Young City Attorney Mike House Comprehensive Planning Task Force Director Albert Elias City Clerk Kathy Detriech. 1 • • Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll Director Transportation& Flood Control Kurt Weinrich Staff Member Scott Eagan South Tucson Mayor Shirley Villegas Council Member Pete Tadeo City Manager Fernando Castro Senior Planner Walker Smith Pascua Yaqui Tribe Chief Administrative Officer Diana Coonce - State Legislators State Representative Jennifer Burns State Representative Manuel Alvarez State Representative Tom Prezelski State Senator Gabrielle Giffords State Representative Dave Bradley State Representative Ted Downing The Chair introduced Mr. Gary Hayes,the new Executive Director of Pima Association of Governments. Mr. Hayes introduced PAG staff in attendance. The Chair thanked Mr. Altenstadter for serving as PAG's Interim Director. 4. BRIEFING ON FEDERAL REAUTHORIZATION 4A. PRESENTATION- Kevin Biesty, ADOT Legislative Liaison In 1991, Congress passed ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which addressed the needs nationwide in transportation. In 1998, Congress passed TEA21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century. One of the key provisions of TEA21 was firewall. Firewalls were established to keep Congress from allocating money put into the Highway Trust Fund for transportation purposes only. On September 30th the current reauthorization expired and we have had a series of continuing resolutions to keep the current transportation programs going. In the spring, President Bush presented the administrations bill which was entitled SAFTEA. SAFTEA included $247 billion funding level for highways, transit and a strong emphasis on safety. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee rewrote the administration's bill, Bill 1072. The Senate version of that bill boosted the funding level to $311 billion and maintained a lot of the administration's safety elements. 1 2 The minimum guarantee levels are what each State is guaranteed. Arizona is currently at a minimum guarantee level of 90.5. The donor/donee discussion focuses on some states that get a lot more of a minimum guarantee than the State of Arizona. The question is why doesn't ADOT fight for a higher minimum guarantee. Among the reasons that people fail to realize is that one of the benefits, Arizona is one of the few States that have an extremely low State match for federal dollars, about 5%. Where other States have 20% state dollars to get the federal match. In the last few years when States were struggling with their budgets, a lot of States, even those with the high minimum guarantee, were not able to draw down their federal dollars because there just weren't enough State dollars. The House Transit and Infrastructure Committee introduced a reauthorization bill that is called TEALU (Transportation Equity Act Legacy for Users). The bill includes $375 billion for highway and transit compared to President Bush's bill at $247 billion and the Senate bill at$311 billion. The anticipated schedule for the House review is early February; the Committee will mark the bill up and have on the floor at the end of February. If the timelines are met a continuing resolution will be needed. Currently, the country is under a five-month short-term extension of TEA21 that is set to expire at the end of February. Mr. Biesty also mentioned high priority projects that ADOT has identified from projects already in the plan throughout the state. These were given to each delegation member for the record. ADOT's top priority in the state right now is the Hoover Dam bypass. Other entities have high priorities as well and if you have other projects you need letters of support for, we will be happy to do that. 4B. DISCUSSION Mayor Loomis asked, "How often do we have to go through this exercise?" Mr. Biesty answered, "is depends on the original authorization period. ADOT's and Governor Napolitano's position has been `more money and a longer authorization period.' Council Member Leal asked for a detailed explanation of the "fire wall." Mr. Biesty explained, "One of the big benefits of TEA21 is the set up of a ``fire wall." It indicates that monies within the HURF can only be used for highway purposes. 3 • Council Member Leal asked, "didn't you say there was a minimum amount of money a percentage that states would get back, was it 90%, with the balance going to fund other national operations?" Mr. Biesty answered that we have a similar debate at the local level. If you think about it some states that don't have the population to support a transportation infrastructure the idea was to have a national transportation system so that people can get, visit, go and transport commerce across the country. Council Member Johnson asked"you mention that nobody wants to raise taxes, but don't transportation projects in an election year lead to a lot more support by the congressional delegation?" Mr. Biesty answered "absolutely." 5. PAG'S 2004 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS 5A. PRESENTATION- Cherie Campbell, PAG A resolution adopted by PAG Regional Council in December 2002 on federal reauthorization was included in the Regional Assembly packet. A copy of the resolution is included in your packet. The core principles outlined in that resolution are to: 1. Protect and maintain TEA-21's core principles. 2. Protect, maintain and enhance the funding allocation. 3. Maximize funding for transportation needs. 4. Increase and encourage cooperation with and support for local decision-makers/. 5. Increase flexibility and streamlining throughout the funding program 6. Recognize the importance of transportation to homeland security. Ms. Campbell also reviewed PAG Regional Council adopted legislative positions for 2004. These positions were developed over time to address issues that frequently come before the legislature and on which we need to be in a position to comment. These are not intended for PAG to go out and propose, promote or create legislation. A copy is included in your packet. The PAG Legislative positions are • Maintain Integrity of the Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) • Adjust and Index State Gas Tax • Establish a Statewide Sales tax for Transportation • Establish a Statewide Transportation Air Quality Funding Program • Continue Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF I and II) for Transportation Purposes • Protect and Retain State Shared Revenues 4 • Maintain Vehicle License Tax Revenues • Maintain PAG representation on the Arizona State Transportation Board • Support Reasonable Performance Measures Ms. Campbell briefly commented on each position. She noted that LTAF funds are valuable for local jurisdictions to do transit projects, often as a source of match for federal funds. State shared revenues such as sales and income tax revenues are crucial to the local jurisdictions to provide basic services. Maintaining vehicle license tax (VLT) revenues is key because VLT is essentially the only inflation based component of the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). That is because it is directly related to the cost of a vehicle. Right now the VLT is 20%of the HURF pot that comes through the state. Conversely, as vehicle mileage per gallon increases, other sources of revenue that go into HURF don't see the same types of increases in revenues that you would see with the VLT. 5B DISCUSSION Council Member Scott asked, "in other states the VLT is so attractive to owners of large fleets or things like that and they choose not to buy a tag for Arizona how can we close that gap and be revenue attractive to such folks?" Cherie Campbell commented, "Enforcement is the key." Tom Prezelski noted"in terms of large trucks that haul stuff there is a bill that will be coming through in the next few weeks not so much to address the license tax itself for trucks but to streamline the process of licensing the trucks because states like Oklahoma and Tennessee have intentionally made it very easy to register your truck in those states in order to raise revenue so Arizona is trying to pass a law that is similar here so it will be easier to license your fleet of trucks in the state of Arizona." Council Member West asked, "didn't a previous gubernatorial administration lop some of the VLT and if so do you recall what the percentage of that was?" Cherie Campbell answered, "I don't have a figure on that, but that has been done three times in the last ten years." Council Member West commented "it was time for us to be vigilant and make sure that that, I don't think our present Governor would do that, but this is a real problem because it is a lifeblood of cities and I don't think that most city residents have a clue about the importance of this money to our cities and I think we need to educate our citizens about and we need to be particularly vigilant to see that that doesn't happen in Arizona. The other question I had is that I believe there is some kind of a tax credit if you buy one of these big SUV or Hummers or 5 something, do you know how that works and would there be any way to close that loophole?" Ms. Campbell understands, "that is a federal credit." Council Member Leal commented, "I think when we decrease revenues that come from the activity of automobiles we put ourselves in a default situation of looking for things like a sales tax instead of license fees, instead indexing theg as tax, raising the gas tax to something that's real world and when I think of the regressiveness of a sales tax I want to go back to what Mr. Biesty was talking about in terms of fire walls. In the language here it says a sales tax distributed outside of HURF restrictions will allow more flexibility on transit" and I would want us if that were actually moving down the pike that there be some real percentages in there so that significant amounts of money through a regressive sales tax were not taken from working families but then they were only getting a disproportionate share back so that we would really need to make sure that those who were paying were actually benefiting in some meaningful way so I think some detail to a formula would have to occur which isn't to say I really like the idea at all because I don't I would rather see the gas tax, indexing the gas tax I mean our staff has told us that if the gas tax had been indexed thirty years ago Tucson would probably be getting $40 million dollars a year more than it currently does. I don't know what those numbers look like for the rest of the communities here but that is real money and it connected back to the activity that is generating the burden and it makes the most sense to me." Council Member Johnson asked, "If it is true that it takes a constitutional amendment to adjust the gas tax?" Cherie Campbell answered, "if we were to try to do that as a county it would take an amendment." Council Member Johnson asked, "As a State we can raise the gas tax by the legislature." Cherie Campbell answered, "Correct." Council Member Johnson asked, "is there indeed opposition from Maricopa County to that kind of the more you use the more you pay kind of concept?" Cherie Campbell answered, it would require a two thirds majority of the legislator that makes it very difficult." 6. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT 6A. PRESENTATION- Alan Colton 6 The State land reform process has been going on for about three years. We are looking at a set of constitutional changes and statutory changes that fundamentally change how the land department does business, how cities, towns and counties relate to the land department and vice versa and how we deal with grazing issues, how we deal with funding of the agency and conservation of lands as well as development of lands." Penny Cotterman commented, "the education community, the ranchers, the cities and towns, the counties, the conservation community after the election in 2000 came together to begin to talk about how to actually reform our State land department. The first is that there are about 9 million acres of state trust land in the State of Arizona. We maintain the largest portion of the original state trust, actually a larger portion of the original state trust than almost any other state. All of the proceeds or revenue from the state trust go directly to a set of beneficiaries. The largest two are: K-12 public education and the higher education universities. For that reason it became a very important issue for the education community. After the passage of proposition 301, a cap was put on the amount of money that the legislator could take from the trust fund for the general fund. We realized as those revenues go directly into the "class recite fund" for teacher compensation and class size. Those kind of issues are going to be much more important to manage that trust over a long period of time." Arlan Colton commented, "this would explain the first structural reform of the agency the second is what happens in the urban areas, the third is what happens in the rural areas of Arizona and conservation lands and the fourth category funding and how the agency becomes funded through this process. The fundamental reasoning is structurally reforming the department, not changing the mission of the trust. The mission of the trust is still to maximize revenue for the beneficiaries, public schools. Structurally, probably today there is a single land commissioner appointed by the Governor that runs the state land department and is in many cases the final word on things. That would change. The commissioner would report to a board of trustees, the board of trustees will be a seven Member body all of whom need to have knowledge and experience in the realm of what the land department does, management of land, and they will be a policy setting board and an approval setting board for a number of actions that the agency takes. Four of the Members will be from the beneficiaries, three from K-12 and one from the Universities. The intention is to safeguard the mission of the trust but also to make sure that everything is kept a little less political manner. This is the chief structural reform of the agency there are more components to it. "In urban areas, the requirements that exist today for coordination between communities and the land department for preparing plans will still exist, but it will be strengthened and there will be a way to resolve differences. A process will be 7 established where those differences get handled early and if for some reason there are differences at the end there will be a winner through a mediation and arbitration process. There will be the ability to identify a through planningprocess g which of those state lands are development suitable and which are conservation suitable. We are trying to find creative ways where you don't necessarily need to spend cash by giving entitlements to the development suitable lands at the same time and then are able to pull down the conservation suitable lands. We are still getting value for the trust. We are still getting value for the school kids out of that process from both development and conservation lands. There are some additional things that happen in the urban area but that's the most important aspect of this the planning process, the disposition process that we will be able to get conservation lands sometimes for cash sometimes for other considerations whether they be density transfers improvements whatever we can come up with to make that work it would be different by each community. In our rural areas, "we have been trying to figure out how to deal with the rural areas without spending so much of the time and effort of the land department in managing for an economic basis what happens in those rural areas when the real value the true value of most of the lands is in the urban areas of the state and that is where we would really like them to focus most of their energies on buty et 8.2 of the 9.3 million acres of state trust land are classified and used forrazin g g purposes. We focused on rangeland health as the key component with the goal to improve the rangeland health primarily through the use of the ten-year grazing leases that operate differently than they operate now. Number one there would be more information coming from the ranching community that would be required, the leases would be tougher, there would be inspections and that there would be compliance checks on these leases. We have an opportunity to also consider grazing leases of up to but not necessarily 25 years but up to 25 years without option, competitive bidding in rural areas not in urban areas where we know that the land pattern isn't necessarily change and this willrovide certaintyto the p rancher that they can invest in making that land better by increasing their ability to fund stewardship projects on that property but they would also be required to have a management plan demonstrating materially enhanced level of stewardship. The part that you probably read about in the paper because if was a focus every time you show a map that's what people focus is drawn to. There is a map in this process and it is called Incentive Lands and Options Lands, those terms may change in the process to conservation lands and conservation option lands but the bottom line is that through the discussion process with all the folks at the table we have come up with approximately 300,000 acres of statewide of conservation lands which would have their vertical development rights extinguished and they would still be allowed to be compatible uses on those lands but they would no longer have vertical development rights included in that is a way to transfer those lands the management to local government. Process using nature conservancy data and work people sitting at a table working through a GIS system identifying all of these lands they were not selected at 8 random they were selected in a way that you get conservation values but you also don't wreck the values of neighboring state trust lands as a matter of fact you will enhance them. Those option lands would be made available to local governments land trust for purchase at fair market value without auction that would solve our Tumamoc Hill problem we have had in the past and enable those lands to be picked up by local government for conservation. What we really would require here I think it is within five years of this whole thing passing that there be an agreement signed between local government and the land use department setting a timetable for how that would happen so that it wouldn't necessarily be yes five years from now come up with the money that's it there would also be ways other than money to acquire that property. Those lands are out there as well but because in the urban area we know we will get conservation out of the development and planning process those incentive and option lands are only part of the conservation aspect of this whole deal. We are still talking about exchanges and we are still debating that but we are talking about only exchanges under certain circumstances between government and government. The last thing I want to talk about is funding. The land department is and will continue to be unless we do something severely under funded it will not be able to maximize the revenues for the trust, it will not be able to be a position to provide conservation lands, it will not be able to better manage the grazing lands unless there is an adequate funding mechanism. Taking a cue from what happens in many other states that over time the land department will become for its trust land management operation self sufficient. Monies will come as a percent of the proceeds of the monies that come into the agency that it raises from the sale of state trust lands and that will ultimately fund the agency and we think that we will get a more professional agency, an agency that can truly provide land management and asset management and so on. 6B. DISCUSSION Mayor Loomis asked, "In identifying all these lands that are going to be preserved that are going to have rights changed on them and stuff like that who is brought to the table to participate in that identification of those affected lands? How do we get everybody to come to the table?" Andy Lorenzi answered, "the process of identifying lands really started in the late 90's when a number of conservation groups decided to get together and conduct a state wide analysis of the significant conservation lands. They did that is a couple of different ways they had lands themselves they identified through various processes also they worked with a number of local jurisdictions whether they worked at the city or county level to identify specific lands and that map in 1998 was something on the order of 1.2 million acres of state trust lands that from various reasons it had been decided had significant conservation value. In this process through negotiation with the education community and the land commissioners office as well as some of the other stakeholders that number was culled down to about 750,000 acres so that was more or less the process. I don't 9 think we could represent that every single community in Arizona was consulted but I think there was a significant level of involvement by a varietyof folks in interested open space issues. Mayor Loomis asked, "How would the map be changed in the future?" Andy Lorenzi answered, "the map is intended to serve us for 20 years with respect to the lands that will be set aside initially when the statute passes but through the conceptual planning process that our own outline there will be opportunities for additional open space set aside and it really depends on the local government if they want to go above what might typically be set aside through a typical development process they have the opportunity using these various value transfer mechanisms to negotiate with the land department Ways in which to conserve other lands." Council Member Johnson asked"there are going to be any changes to the annexation procedures for state trust lands and is there going to be a change from incorporation drawing a map for incorporation of a new city versus those procedures used for annexation of state trust lands?" Arlan Colton answered, "annexation is not an issue that is addressed in this draft anywhere, it is what it is, the state land in order to annex as you know state trust land you need to have the approval of the selection board. What is changing is I think we are changing the selection board because really this board of trustees will operate as that selection board rather than the current system that was really designed to select land that is why it is the Governor, the Treasure and the Attorney General and not necessarily land managers would be represented by the board of trustees. We do have in the draft I suspect there will still be some debate on it, a provision that would mirror the existing annexation rules relative to trust land in incorporation of new communities because right now you can incorporate state trust lands without the say so of the state land department they have no say whatsoever and in annexation they do so we are not changing annexation we are looking at the incorporation procedures. Council Member Johnson asked, "if the trustees will have the capability of making that decision on annexing state trust land versus that three numbers?" Arlan Colton answered, "that the last draft he saw yes and I think that is a much better system frankly they can meet more frequently they can get on requests quicker. The selection board today meets no more than quarterly the board of trustees would meet at least monthly you would have access to them much quicker." Representative Prezelski asked, "I haven't heard any discussion so far as to how this fits in with the effort to preserve military bases and I am wondering under what you are drafting would the state be able to take state land that is within the 10 flight path of a military base and set it aside and make sure that that land remains grazing land or conservation land so that it doesn't get developed?" Arlan answered, "none of the things we are looking at is trying to get value so directly answers no however, if we are looking at the planning process then in this case the City of Tucson and in other cases Pima County would be going through we are re-looking at plans over the years that it may very well be possible to identify lands that values could be shifted from to other lands to allow those lands to be in effect acquired for less or perhaps even be set aside. It is speculative on my part to be talking about this because we haven't looked at from that perspective but there might be a possibility of dealing with it through the planning process and if the commissioner of the board of trustees believes they are getting fair value in some sort of entitlements elsewhere that that may be a possible solution, I don't know." Council Member West asked, "Would the arbitration provisions allow an arbitrator to overturn city zoning decisions?" Arlan answered, "no,we envision a process number one the process we are talking about is the planning process not the zoning process and the mechanism in the statute will be set up such that the cooperation and the benefits of cooperation will be so obvious from the beginning of the process they will be required in the beginning but they will be rather obvious in the process because here is an opportunity to actually get some free land, to get land at less value to provide another way other way other than cash to acquire lands that it will make logical sense. We do believe, however,that in the rare instance where there is just no agreement absolutely flat out no agreement between what a local government wants on its plan for the state trust lands and the state believing that its not being treated fairly that its not being treated as similarly situated private lands that there has to be a resolution the resolution we talked first is mediation and if that fails baseball arbitration. Somebody you go both sides present their case and somebody decides. It's the only way we could think of and we went through this round and round but at some point somebody has to make a decision because otherwise this whole system breaks down if the communities and the state are working at cross purposes with each other and we know that in many communities around the state that is the way it has worked in the past. We are trying to create a new framework where it isn't going to work that way in the future, everybody will be working on the same team because it will be beneficial for both parties everybody wins as opposed to creating a winner and a loser." Council Member West asked, '`Would cities be able to regulate the lessee's of state land?" Arlan answered, "I don't want to speak for the land department since I no longer worked there, but my recollection is that in every lease that was issued particularly commercial leases there is a provision in there that says must follow the rules of the city whatever the city wants that's today. We haven't touched that because we don't expect that to change but I will tell you that there are some county attorneys and city attorneys out there not necessarily in Pima County but elsewhere who have not necessarily proceeded that way but that is what the leases say." Council Member Leal asked, "I understand the good sense of havingschool district and U of A representatives having a number of seats on the board because the goal is to both maintain and enhance revenues for education. Could there be the possibility in that format that they would be inclined to sell more in some places to capture revenues for themselves but could certain sales they would do put cities in the position of having to expend a lot of money for infrastructure to accommodate those sales so that the very families who are the tax payers in the school district for whom this is supposed to be a benefit by creating cost avoidance for them by getting money from the sale of state land to protect school districts and the families they tax only to have those same families taxed quite a bit by the cities their in to pay for the ramifications of having the land sold in the first place so has that kind of dilemma been talked about in your process and are there ways for cities to protest to get meaningful input for those occasions when that occurs?" Arlan answered, "We don't think under the new system we are proposing that that is going to happen and I'll tell you why. The reason is a couple of things the land department will be required to dispose of based on an annually updated five year disposition plan which you will know about and you will have an opportunity to comment on what will be adopted." Council Member Rochman asked, "I didn't quite understand the 750,000 acres. Would that be retained as state land or would that is sold to cities and towns throughout the state. How abut that property?" Arlan answered, "the state land department throughout thisp rocess does not want to become the state parks department and the beneficiary doesn't want the state land department to be a state parks department either so with the incentive lands there will be a way to transfer those lands to local government for management purposes with the option lands that you actually have to pay for there will be a process for acquisition the only significant difference as to who can take down those lands is that for the pre-lands the ones whose vertical development rights are extinguished that it can't go to a private entity it would have to go to a government entity the other ones could go to either government or private conservation organization." 7. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 7A. PRESENTATION- Cherie Campbell, PAG PAG over the last year or so has been involved in development of a Long Range Regional Transportation Plan that takes a look at transportation needs and 1? potential multimodal solutions through the year 2030. Our PAG Regional Council over that same time became engaged in a discussion as to how best could they develop and implement a truly regional transportation plan that looks at various modes and the various needs throughout the community?How can we ensure that the solutions are, both individually for jurisdictions and collectively as a region, the solutions that are best suited to our needs?How can we ensure that we have a reliable long term funding source to implement our transportation solutions? To that end the subject of a Regional Transportation Authority came to the forefront and Regional Council authorized a study that was ultimately conducted by Dr. Tanis Salant with the Institute for Local Government at the University of Arizona. The study looked at the steps that might be necessary to put PAG in a position of a functioning Regional Transportation Authority. Dr. Salant presented it to the Regional Council this past November. As a result of the study it was determined that PAG was already designated as a Regional Transportation Authority back in 1990, however, there was separate legislation that sunseted in 1992 that had given the Regional Transportation Authority the ability to submit both a transportation plan and request for an excise tax to fund that plan to the voters for approval. To evaluate the issues involved, Regional Council set up an RTA Implementation Subcommittee consisting of representatives from the Town of Marana, the Town of Sahuarita, the City of Tucson, Pima County and the Arizona State Transportation Board. That Subcommittee met and developed a recommendation that was heard by the Regional Council in December 2003. At that time Regional Council took somewhat of an unprecedented action which was send the recommendations back to each of the jurisdictions for comment and review so that they could ensure if they move forward it was truly with consideration of the concerns that were held by the community as well as with a unity and consensus for moving forward. As a result, each of the jurisdictions did consider the report of the RTA Implementation Subcommittee and presented their findings to the Regional Council in a special meeting on January 15, 2004. After much discussion the Regional Council unanimously voted to ask our area legislators to both introduce and support legislation that would update provisions of the existing legislation and reinstate PAG's ability to submit to the voters a request for approval of a transportation plan and excise tax to fund that plan. The specific proposals that came out of the Regional Council meeting included providing that Membership of the board for the Regional Transportation Board for the Regional Transportation Authority would be identical to the current Membership of the PAG Regional Council. That would involve a change to statute that would add representatives of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the Arizona State Transportation Board. Another provision that came out of the meeting was a request to delete what was in essence a veto provision that was in the existing statute. Thatp rovision originally specified that both Pima County and the City of 13 Tucson would need to approve the transportation plan that was beingproposed prior to it being requested to be put to ballot. Regional Council also asked that the Regional Transportation Authority be authorized to call for an election and request a countywide vote on a transportation plan and a tax to fund thatp lan. They requested that all references in existing statute that refer to a ten ear plan Y be changed to twenty years. There was also discussion of a lot of other factors, so Regional Council directed their RTA Implementation Subcommittee continue to meet and develop, perhaps sp p through policies or procedures or administrative types of solutions, ways to issues. address these other Those included things like adjusting the minimum allocation that was included in the legislation, enhancing both public review and input into the transportation planning process to ensure there was a good buy in from the community, investigating options to make growth pay for itself so that all the communities throughout the region were on somewhat of a par in terms of the fees that they collect and use for transportation improvements and also to ensure that local options exist and are maintained for those jurisdictions to implement the projects that are within their jurisdictions and to essentiallyretain the ability that they now have to control their own futures. Things have been moving fast since that point in time. Two bills have been introduced in the House: HB2507 by Representative Huffman and in the Senate, SB 1145 by Senator Bee. Both of these bills as introduced are identical and they would amend the existing Regional Transportation Authority legislation and allow PAG as the Regional Transportation Authority to submit a transportation plan to the voters and an excise tax to fund the plan, both bills expand the timeframe for the plan and the tax to twenty years, they specify that the Regional Transportation Authority Board Membership would include all of the PAG Membership both now and in the future and they specify that voters must approve any substantial plan changes or continuation of the excise tax. There will be a hearing with the House Transportation Committee on HB2507 at 1:30 p.m. on February 2, 2004. 7B. DISCUSSION Council Member Rochman asked, "are the two bills identical?" Cherie answered, "They are identical." Representative Downing asked, "how many times did PAG present a plan to the voters before the old legislation expired?" Cherie answered, "it was one time and it failed. Regional Council has determined that getting public support before you go out to ask them is critical and to that end we are looking to make public input a critical first step in our transportation plan." 14 Representative Downing asked, "What kind of enhancements will be made to public involvement?" Cherie answered, "we have already started that effort over the past year with some different techniques that haven't been tried. We are going out to the community and working with special interest groups and a lot of the populations that have not traditionally been talked to about their transportation needs. We have had a program called peer facilitation, we went out to a variety of homeowners associations, social agencies, neighborhoods groups, service providers, churches, etc. and developed a whole cadre of individuals that we have been training in means to get to the people that they deal with on a daily basis to hold meetings with them and get input from them and then to give that input back to us in a way we can understand and use. So it is going out to the people Who have not been talked to before by using people that they have trust and confidence in and getting input that is very structured so that we understand it and can use it as we develop a transportation plan. That is one component but there will also be a massive information component where we will have a whole series of public meetings, forums with special interest groups, meetings with elected officials, business leaders, speakers bureau, etc and we will doing all of that throughout the next year and a half as we move forward with our 2030 Transportation Plan." Council Member Leal asked, "you talked about looking system wide at the kind of revenue generation that the various communities would have regarding development paying for itself and what have you, another part of that would be a discussion about a maintenance of effort so that funds could not be supplanted. What kind of conversations occurred about that issue?" Cherie answered, "in terms of the plan we have under development right now we are taking a look at the total cost of our transportation system in terms of maintaining it, operating it and that is plugged into all of our projections and estimates for our long range plan." Council Member Leal said, "not really talking about maintenance, but what is called a maintenance of efforts. Say Tucson spending $30 million a year on transit and part of this tax gave us 10 million extra for transit so instead of us having 40 if the city took out 10 of the 30 kept it back in the general fund took the 10 from you and we still only have 30 that's a maintenance of effort. So have you all talked about protecting against that kind of action from happening?" Cherie answered, "there has been a discussion of that but nothing has been developed in terms as to how we will deal with that." Council Member Leal said, the public will be concerned and skeptical unless they see us protecting their interests by creating mechanisms that hold us accountable from those types of excesses. The second thing I want to ask about is when we were talking about the federal model we were talking about fire walls and one of the tire walls that exists is 90.5%, has there been a discussion of using 15 a similar type of mechanism for the same kinds of balance of local needs, regional participation and a fire wall on a percentage so that everyone contributes to a fund that deals with things regionally but no one is really put in aposition of beingan . extreme donor into a situation. Clearly other has figured out how to do that by the existence of the federal model so have we talked about doing somethinglike that � for this vehicle?" Cherie answered, "that has been discussed but again nothing has yet been developed in terms of how we will address that." Council Member Leal asked, "has to do with accountability and outreach and getting buyoff from the community, and, clearly the new Authority would have more authority than PAG has had and clearly more authority than MAG has had because MAG with their authority as I understand really just does the planning but doesn't t collect tax money nor spend it. So given that this authority desires those two next significant steps, I believe there is an issue that we have to deal with that is pretty large and that has to do with equal protection, protected classes of people within the voting rights act; because if this authority has six, eight, nine Members on it and each of our communities can only hold accountable one of the people on that body I think we have a significant exposure legally in terms of equal protection and protecting protected classes of people and we are going to need to think through that really carefully." Cherie commented, I thinks that is why the Regional Council has dictated that their RTA Implementation Subcommittee would continue to meet so that they can address issues such as that and move forward in agreement." Council Member Leal said, "Invite people to participate who understand and care about those issues." Cherie commented, "so done." Council Member Rondstadt said, "there are obviously going to be a lot of questions that are going to need to be responded to but ultimately the equity issues will determined by the voters, all of the issues that have been laid before as obstacles those are decisions that the voters will have to make and it is going to be up to PAG to present a plan and a funding source that addresses those equity issues. It is obvious to me and I think to a lot of people at this dais that the status quo has been a dismal failure and I think it's a bold visionary step that we have taken to come together as a region which is somethingthat we consistentlyhear from the citizens of our metropolitan area they want to see us working together they want to see a regional solution to a regional problem and I think Mayor Loomis and Mayor Walkup need to be really applauded for this because they are the two individuals that really spearheaded this thing in getting it going and I think all of us around this table owe them a debt of gratitude I think ultimately the citizens of this region are going to benefit from their vision and from working with PAG and the other entities to make this happen.- 1 6 appen."16 • Mayor Loomis said, "one thing they did that he wanted to highlight is that we have brought the region together on this issue and that was demonstrated both by the individual councils that they took in supporting this program and also in the unanimous vote that the Regional Council took. I think some of the impact from the work that we have done is already spilling over when we had our meting with the county on the bond issue. Yes, we are making progress. I am looking forward to Monday in Phoenix and I would like to invite anyone who would like to attend." Council Member Scott commented, "thanks to PAG and the staff who went out recently to establish the next transportation plan in a region. I can tell you that I was a small part of a very huge effort that they exerted and I have to say it is one of the most outstanding outreach efforts that I have ever seen that I think was probably the most sophisticated and the most far reaching. So I applaud Melaney Seacat and the others I don't know who made that happen because it is on that platform that the success of this might stand. Mayor Loomis thanked PAG staff and the City of Tucson for putting this meeting together and all the support. The next assembly agenda will be compiled by PAG Management Committee so if there are additional items that you would like to talk about let us know. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Please Note: These minutes are not official and are provided as a courtesy by PAG to interested parties. An official recording of the Assembly is available at PAG upon request. 17 .4.'on of ` � 7-s Pima Association of Governments Of I Regional Assembly 177 N Church Ave., Suite 405 • Tucson AZ 85701 • (520) 792-1093 - 4,4) b' Avie PAG Regional Assembly A joint meeting of the Councils/Boards of Pima County, City of Tucson, City of South Tucson, Town of Marana, Town of Oro Valley, Town of Sahuarita, Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. January 23, 2004 5:30 P.M. Dinner(by invitation) 6:30 P.M. Assembly Tucson Convention Center, Apache/Cochise Meeting Rooms 260 S. Church, Tucson, Arizona. Mayor Paul Loomis,Town of Oro Valley and Chair of the Pima Association of Governments Regional Council, will be presiding Estimated Topics Comments Duration JOINT PIMA COUNTY/CITIES/TOWNS MEETING (51, v 2 mins. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Loomis 2 mins. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Mayor Loomis 6 mins. 3. ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTIONS —Mayor Loomis. 4. BRIEFING ON FEDERAL REAUTHORIZATION 10 mins. 4A. PRESENTATION - Mr. Kevin Biesty—ADOT - Legislative Liaison will brief the Assembly on Federal Reauthorization. 10 mins. 4B. DISCUSSION—Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. OVER -÷ Estimated Topics Comments Duration 5. PAG's 2004 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS 5 mins. 5A. PRESENTATION–Gary Hayes–PAG Executive Director and Cherie Campbell–PAG Transportation Planning Director will brief the Assembly on PAG's 2004 Legislative Positions 5 mins. SB. DISCUSSION–Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. 6. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE STATE LAND � ��t�u►� DEPARTMENT > up. -�ura�- �`� � 6A. PRESENTATION–Arlan Colton�will brief the o p3P-15 mins. IAssembly on proposed legislative changes to the State LL 4e- e11-44f�,yl� f,!„im,4'0‘r- Land Department. tt-' pi/ce (4 15 mins. 6B. DISCUSSION–Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and -p frin ��_ discuss regional strategies. M ve-31--- � S� C-€ 7. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (r4 7A. PRESENTATION–Gary Hayes–PAG 15 mins. Executive Director and Cherie Campbell–PAG Transportation Planning Director will brief the Assembly on recent activities to re-establish the RTA 15 mins. 7B. DISCUSSION–Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. 2 mins. 8. ADJOURNMENT–Mayor Loomis NOTE: Parking at the TCC is free in parking lot"A”off of Church Street. .•.. $ �:«` . ƒ�\ \ \� \�Aƒ*4 � �%•�}x s®�'.<y'� PC H till • ti...11 tii IMMIlli • (1) N (IC? 'L< ..... 0 '< immi • CA ...t L---NA pp pip CI) iplu cf) fa+ ...i • 0 0 ,micj 05 ° p; pc 0 t.i CD .--t e-p- pip ....t td i pulp- - c—P-. —t" till. e � 0 • C1) CD p up H (:)---01 ....a • .1.11.] >� [4:-.Mili: A �� It'.;',..{} r1' Y . i:..,:],,,i;,..:x.5.,.,', V' ''� ,+tF4"V> v ,:., ..... ♦ ,l_ F far �<� i:i.:;;I:.-,, ,,-,•,..:.,,,..:-,,?...,', ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.... .:. .-.-.] „ rr r r• r,�r t ,,.. TT � ,,,,,, _, ►1„ .• ► .r. .E• 5. ,. ..,„: ' VITI4 3%:.":.'•tSt —,,, .t FNO 14‘,•; '., II ,',.''),J. al 'lir 1.11 •i • t rte.°.. t ,fit Ill'110 NIP I.'1,14 l'e I I.....1 ,$I 1.,•),. • •1 �t` ir4 Ni. tt vi.t, i 7,,,„.,1 ' I► t ttirli r •/ /■r ..�• ri It. .1, ,l 2 i/ 1 ::t7:�r S,7w.R• ..,-,-,,i • fl Isti t ♦11 ,.. i „ c °” ,c, 1 '•1r,1H• IF, °I „.. / k�r` .I.1> �.�'1 1141'' fY y:_,1•.••t..y'ii.>, ~,•i T .., i , ,... ., ,,,„ .. Ts" , 1 ,:,, y.‘..4 ), , tit L.e. IT Ito is.; kstjd� tip r �,I y I' ti 3 a 11 ! 1 ' tts '��' '�«.. (ID ild t.0,: 1. i ,' >.s t I • tpi, 4:,' 1 r��% ;:�. ii,, ���� I� 1 .°�',s1.11, � ii; �:� i 4 11111 I.). tit) i t , �, `i •x' f • , :.,: , ,. , ti.s,,,, , .. -' '11':-. .--.'.' 4. , '',-. .,,7?::::`,-,'',',:', '.,:.,-.:4 A..): '. ., i.‘17,.._ ..,:5:, , ael ?: 1;0 .....;ci:,.:177:1 ;'''..:;:-!7:*'::.i.'14....:.:7-. Il'us.d.:::. .:' :; ..j. - 1, Iwo agi tall) °4. <%-l.t -II 2 .y, s o> '' 1t,,,..:::::',.:°.;sf'sl.V. s2;t /. , ii,,,,pe ' .:',1: '''..'''' i...i;-' riniMil 1'‘it 0, !:,....:If.. t,; :< :2 `.• !. . {tom;"2�t1'': 2 •II ji CI r k • �' r I ��a ,t a 1,,,,..,9...- yf a:' • '''''.. ' It �l Y 2 1.11< <.yl ' .t • 7 i•t •■� .:.ci is ir:�� �l�. 1� "Ml:i < '•�� ` • xtx . , t2 ► 9 .1 r1,1 .•I ,l 1 s' .a • if.'s ,. Ilt ' t 111'! If S 1• ! :-e:: rI pts 1 f' �}':Ii► efS �I t� ::s, 3.::••. .. t s11 i'1'' f„1' '<' .rth, id I sfi1�ç a .1 1 1 s ' 1 ' •�:x i. i I !•' ur sip1 i Illm< tit) .. .. , <t' � •to'� • i•If ,., -...,3.-',.:,i.4.: :,'! (.. 4011 ' :e: . 'LI I�sA� .z'-,t 1'ii>+ �• �'1 •ol• • �f a>s �� ra} 3 �� t . t. 1IIIII ui Z :yJ�liji:�: �' '*-Ni,,. ..' 'c,...;.,ih :•.SII �s`a�i""Y•1 I. � �„' X37:• f ;1.r. 5 € i ' :t i"z t t' imi "IR `'i.,,-,:(‘,�:2 1.84: s"�.:, 1.,:::17, ,� 'i t .•ca� •�” >:>I »•I �.::), &- , . : . e�-.:: nlii ill.. -' :.::lit't.:::"1;",, ; .1:'1.i It'.0.'i'''1.-14-....,,:•:,.-4...i:, '.-•.:1 '..''. .,'::::.'','..'c—,;:a4.-0L,',.,.N.;....::)..,t. pp -,, .....1",...: fo7......,„,.,-,-;.,-,4iii -...„ .,,,,,..„L. , r.,,v,7,,...?',.- 4.-pj.... — .... „,...t...„, - ,„;.,,,...... ,,,.-:.,,..:- .,L,.,,...,st. ::„..., ..,,,„1 iiii;iar : , - 11 N., , !Aills.'ilat '::—'1 ' 1. 'mu „.-• �4�J' f:iii i`•° haft') ...1'4'41''''. 4 4 ,( 1 2 r. • :' `.' i i .<.t 1 7 k`2 >`_x 1 allo4�l`x et,,,, £ ,1,! ,r;.).k- .i ,4. '` ,:' 7�<�• .`*. } S t:�s 3 Imi I. 7 f�"-,, ■•:fv,I , RI :is tf a i , : 1 ....y., , .'-. ‘14:e.i."IA ' • ••,': e 'ti" S.,A1:i'pn: ' • Cr ..i7A,,, ) . :, ,11:,. .:\.r. .--/4..-:,.;,k, ,,,,,Att...1: ..,,N.:- ..,.,pi,„.27;C:c : ,t.,...::: ilia i!J.-J.'; pm 0) • ;• , _ f • R` 1 `x, i,�,i°st,i 2,x tit• �';�� > � 1 f carr•xa�r > :1�.2 -•t+ ->'S1�� ��4 - H•Y!3't k �:f �i t� K 1 .1 Wif 1.1 1 ' s,'' ,1.'‘r, : vortti,.• :!.--.,, ',' y ..,....' i ,,A! :,1i,-. , .,,,:.' : , ,,. ...,,, ,..,;,......--,-.,„ .1., ,,!!(.,., -7.,...e. . .-,,,,..„k%k,, , :,,.- :. ... •,L< '' •''. •Q' •1 a '_'• ' rt ,: �•,1',1,,:• I • • •• • 7.r•1 el 71 r. 3 1 •• Y._. .: r S° 4,1•••_ F f. �.2:• ,is �� 1 �i '�I I ,: iti Y'Y�> :02 ■ "CI a ' , ' '' .,,,71;k:744-.. V. .''''' ' .',-''.- .,'''.'1 ,•-- if..Rw.t V) . .....,..: , . ,,,i- ..... ''' ' -'• ' ..,.#.4•,-•• : , CD qT�..,, �fa,�.;+T Iyb +�'�,. fiR.•�e ,. '�'�v „:::,:t:,:.,,,,,,. dP YM'..'.�n 6o ein't" limA 1UP mmt (1) t,,,,,,,,, ..:.:•:., ,-;;;,,..„..:,.. „„ ,..,,,,,...., , 7 4,.., .,44;lik '7' ' *op. ..,.'• .'`.• •,,,,:',IX:..' %.:.I.-.H. s.,,,••::' ,,s„ ,','.. ..7. ,.'''''s.. :' 7:::.4.''..ii.:::-.:• -1,0::,T •„•,.....•' ,,...... .:.41.r.._,,‘:: ''1.:.,,,,., .....' .:. .. ., T '..'. .,, ,.... . -n , Ilam.•� �X �• .:.....,, ...,.., . , . .. C 1.1111 C) 'fit \. T K.,` .• .:,;.;:;,;;;.;7.... ^ 7.... .' w R„F `,, ,,...i.„.,./ an ,,. .i• m ,'Y' . .,�w:• ... ..--f-, ,:.::, „....„.:..:: ,: . ,, . ___ ... ... ...., . ..,., . .... ...4 .,..s.,. ...-....- a) .,: ..-, ::.4:.::,,,i.,.. a a .:A ' ' K::::::.... %< ■ „,t,:.:..:„.:,41,„...,.:::;.,. .a i• Y°m”' tea'.'... ,.c ir ii.k,Cst �"1.yF hMIMI 0 cr T —), ..,...,,,I!..s„,,,....„4„:7 ,,,,i,:;,...,:..„.::„....;,,,,.:,,,„,..... ,„: isoi.ot.!..!..„, a& a w,, T .,,, .. .,..,, 4, , ...„.,. . , .. ,..:„.. ,t, ., ■ -.70 si o- ..;;ilii„,:t.:.. FACS _9G'`F� ,.„: uk � M R�w t, ..._ . •:,...,44:,..,:::;-----,,:::::.,:..;,:i „:,::::.:....,‘ ...,,,, I. M 73 N 1"< —.1 , ,iit mac^ > . ..,y a� i.,::.,:- .... 4 /) Y �q 7...,. , ,, .,,.:: .‘...,, ,,.„..,:..„;.:.:,,,..., = 0 :71:ft%.-..:.,...:''"---- .,..•,..:.....AH y f 1J( ¢'+`C � % get{ "',;..-47,..„!,' te { ` `7, 9 3 R`7M • r ,,„,,.. Y- ' i „ 4w _ /4,.,... Nip ' " ...„. cp. O. i'D# } iR �. �ueA'v.r . P. S R 3 :c'.$1.--;...,.,;.'-.t1.454, A.' dtr\GI - as a �,. :-7; (1) PC -ri -n > z cs rcl. O .,;!Ait.ittv!g.• of .--.7.1:*'''......, ^�. y, :N'::::::...',',..,- .,5 s,� 'mq' ,i,..„' x• Mill _,_, S AP L �``���'� k o!F ' ...*„.......: ,,,,,:•,,,.. . ;?4 C �4J °Mi'' °> ci) p . „.-2:,, ...,..,:i'i:7.::::' 0 A� '; 5 ` --.;.t.j.:::7,..,,,..,7-:•,..,.:,..:,.,,::1. ,,:,.:.„,„;:.,::...::.., .. , milh • x�`� .. � tel.�. 42, .• < "� w... 7'' �, C .M1 -*.. :if.',.::'...!kc *. :'..,1:'..'..z..t.i. • 0 , ' it.,..4._. O w fes' • y #,: ."-. C� �..>}4 5}\ƒ *:H:::: •. �. � � m y „3„.,,..00,14t; 4;44 f \ " \ z - ,,,5,„...„ ,,,,,:.,,f,,„. 4/ :;« � \ ,., :a " $ 2 \ .\ ...:;,,. .. :. itilk- .,,.., :,.,4:. . . III II III IN .-..- (i) e.+- cl),_, 51) NA/ co o.. tp _ (i) - = .iii � ciD 3 3 a) o _ 3 D3 C.. 0 5:0 ■ (I) - —■ cla � ....s p = u) . 7... = tri 0........11CD ...... ip,..,+„, ...... 0■ ri'l'a = CD (1.) .... .1.4.1) CA ...1 7c...., imii minco a) � co ... ■ ....- � = 3 ....... (/)CO 0 � e ,,...i...) CA * CI) °-1 (/) 51) -I. CD 73 Cl. r■-t- P H 0 (D.• 0 .4.41 0.) 0 (0 r) CD tillMIMI = tr..4- =-I1-1520 MINIM■ fl.fla (CD MIMI■ 51) M.Mt 0 =Na = cni) = * (/) r-p- as) -o c4 ‘.< 0 ''d v -5 r..4-• 0 ...3 CD 51) ...... �■ v 0 Pc--p ai) = ......i e CD RU gig ,,r LfLtimi�;. V in4,0-is.,,. ri.:!:i,....,„. J, ;.;1K%,':' si • sslp ill Si;:4 f ,t7310 :'• �e{h�+ s • 111 . 1 111 0 CD000O )0 cO SU 0 cp C � — C =im 2,CD a CD up) _. ims n 73 to ,<2, '� CDm O o 0- _. (13 0 Ern" Mil 14‹ 2) su * m CD CU...Pk M -.poilk M %_ CD0 ‘i< 2 ....• 0 In n ......, e<-1. = r+ _11 0 _• (D ca M ..,.-.-. = M 4 = 2),N C4 mat. mi.. el a rt Ei; co ....... ...1 .• m = iv CD m CD itiki.. tilil 0 CI) 3 C) 2 CD 2 2 c� ita CD 0 2 = m u) co mi. emilk RIM II rolik M ami,MoE)I& r1.11/k "1 . - M - crilL MOCU IT) U) Ell =NMCr2 MNSal) = =0PIRA CU ...„,, ..... slu ..... _.2 a = — C.C2 0O SD 1S .::.i:: :.'. t ill /Sr` Cf; '4:3':';,:%,':is 4?4 't rk :„,,,,,, .,:,-:_,:. s r .•.6ty< • trTi n • tr.] • • > (1). > H • G) c') c (5 t&) ...1.1 H 0 (1) k< ,--1- D c -1% p.- (D ..--k 0 tp = oj f iNim"C 2" r''+_._ (.0 = ‘#' w ...4- CDCD • H ci) r-t- mtC) Ca. = 0. 0tt 0 z = 0_ -- —0 o ...., cii , t .)* 0- CD = C .....-A .......] c4 (/) ---1 H > 1-0 ev,(/) c'D --1 NA, . 0 —h (c), 0 (.0 C0 n -..-] ....,1 �+ 00 a) 711 etrai-.1. 3 173 (1) 0 (f) tri 0 a enC)- = (-- till n w 73 _,, E3 .....s 5.0 C/) (c) P: /CD ,.... 0_ 3 (/) Co .5, s M ' :'1,,! :.;',15 ...,:„„.,.,,,,,,.,, ,. iiii,„,,,,,.,„.:,.,,t.. ,,,,„..„,,,,,„. ,,,,„,,::,,,,„ it zr ,,,,,,,,„.: ., 4:', 4, .4z., -.7,!,,,..:'. , ,,,'A,,.-,-1 p 1vS III • • i.44*. . ,.• n cA rri rit -iit a 'IA --t 0 ..., a cn ,-+- < P (—I- 1CD CD e—p- CD --ink.), 2, a c—t- c4 CA ,....14 P a acl, c ., '-'11 ''.-A . ,..., • CDc—t- CD " 0 a n ,-+- 0 tit P r-+- 0 ......i 0 C/) 0,...i ......i ...r • ....ii • -'11 ."."1) . Cfg 0 CD CI) CD CD H r—t- '-' cip P ''''Ci 0 CIA --1 P c-+ 6 . • 1 r ,: $ „ ,,i leicitil :Yi)...:-Ikvi 1,1:c,, ,,,.,,,k,,,,,.. •.„,„..„:,, z1 ”. ._, . :4 ho"„f 9fa\l \ ,,,;,,,is., ,,,;:,;,,,, ,,,,, ,, ,, -•.,-; . ",,z,.,, ,,,,,, .,,., :.\,•‘''.5 a 111 I . I I I I I I cn cp0 cp > * —I a wari CO —I 0 mwom m -ri su ..„,, 0 MOM co In 0 m co m ‘< = c) tu m m 2 <. Cir --i u) 0 I m F. o 2 --1 ,0 m 90 -0 i 0 z Eci 0 xi (1) CC 0 (1).„ M Cn C4 E ” coo � co a -0mil& o 2 ....% i su Pt co (.11 tin r- Ki) tD N = coic90 I .... cip .13itil � ..... -nt —i M co mmt C > =— m n Cr min 1/-4- L-1.1 co _ upia -, —• rn tu gu o 1--- ..1 Om irmitk C ow * M .....III --4\- > =mi.C )\-) 0 CD) ....: -1% ill .--t"- X S.,,,j C ‘5--, 0 ---ZL. in %., 1 71\.) c2b .a - 0 —3 -\\%, t.,,\ r C \\" • Pima Association of Governments 177 N CHURCH AVENUE,SUITE 405 Tucson AZ 85701 (520)792-1093 FAX:(520)620-6981 TPD: 792-9151 RESOLUTION Regarding Comment on Reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Act Whereas, the Pima Association of Governments is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Pima County Arizona; Whereas, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21S` Century (TEA-21) expires on p q September 30, 2003; Whereas, the Pima Association of Governments supports the basic principles set forth within TEA-21 which include more transportation funding, more responsibility for and cooperation between the state and local governments, improved regional planning, appropriate consideration for all modes of transportation, greater flexibility and simplicity, and assurances that transportation derived revenues are used for transportation purposes; Whereas, TEA-21 Reauthorization is of extreme importance to the citizens living within Pima County, the State of Arizona, and the United States; Whereas, transportation infrastructure and mobility are paramount to the economic sustainability, growth and security of the citizens of the region, the State, and the Nation; Therefore it is resolved that the Regional Council for the Pima Association of Governments encourages the Administration and the Congress of the United States to support and enact a Reauthorization Bill for Surface Transportation that includes the following: 1. Protect and maintain TEA-21's core principles: These principles include more transportation funding, more responsibility for and cooperation between the state and local governments, improved regional planning, appropriate consideration for all modes of transportation, greater flexibility and simplicity, and assurances that transportation derived revenues are used for transportation purposes. 2. Protect, maintain and enhance the funding allocation: Nationwide, the funds available for transportation fall short of meeting transportation needs. Additionally, funding fluctuations can cause serious problems in project delivery. The funding allocation can be protected, maintained and enhanced by: • Maintaining the firewalls established with TEA-21 • Enhancing levels of funding to the States and MPOs by eliminating obligating authority constraints. 1 3. Maximize funding for transportation needs: Transportation planners and decision- makers are faced with a dual problem when addressing transportation needs: a) the need for new infrastructure to meet the demand of growing populations, and b) the need to replace/maintain the existing aging infrastructure. Maximizing the funding available is the only way to insure that our country's transportation network will continue to function and grow to meet the needs of future generations. The funding could be maximized by: • Increasing the Federal Gas tax • Indexing the Federal Gas Tax for inflation • Spending down the Highway Users Trust Fund (HUTF) • Reinvesting the interest made on the HUTF back into the HUTF • Compensating for lost HUTF revenues due to tax subsidies for ethanol and other alternative fuels • Maintain and improve Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) with refinements • Support for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) "Two Cents Makes Sense" Proposal 4. Increase and encourage cooperation with and support for local decision-makers: Any increase in funding to the States needs to penetrate to the local levels of government. Local/regional taxation has become more difficult given trends that increasingly require local communities to shoulder the burden of social programs and activities. State and regional transportation systems are interdependent on each other and are the backbone of the national system. The support for local jurisdictions could be accomplished by incorporating the � g following: • Ensuring any increases in funding to the States are passed through to local levels by allocation to the MPOs • Restoring to MPOs the minimum guarantee sub-allocation as was the case with the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) • Increasing MPO planning funds • Requiring annual revenue forecasts and financial plans be developed cooperatively and mutually agreed among the State, MPOs and Transit Operators • Focusing the conformity process on the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) rather than the short-range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) • Increasing the RTP update cycle from three years to five for all areas • Increasing funding for safety and suballocation of safety funds to MPOs • Strengthening the Borders and Corridors program 2 'wrr#' aw • 5. Increase flexibility and streamlining throughout the funding program. Increasing program flexibility will ensure more projects are completed in a timely manner. Increased flexibility and timeliness can by accomplished by: • Establishing statewide Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs with funding flexibility for use on eligible projects in areas nearing nonattainment regardless of classification. • Working toward major changes to or streamlining the federal process (environmental/funding) to improve project delivery. • Allowing concurrent review processes. • Provisions to guarantee local projects are not delayed by lengthy state review processes such as guaranteed turn round periods for specific review items • Delegation of more review authority to currently self-certified jurisdictions and lowering of the size threshold for self-certification. 6. Recognize the Importance of Transportation to Homeland Security. Homeland Security is, and deservedly so, one of the Nation's top priorities. However, the Administration and Congress need to look beyond appropriations for direct measures and realize that the interconnected regional, state and interstate transportation infrastructure and the mobility it provides are paramount to the Nation's security and its ability to function and respond in times of emergency. Our aging and congested roadways and bridges are vulnerable to subversive activities and efforts to improve their flow and structural integrity should be given priority. The surface transportation system must be developed and maintained to perform should our Nation's airways be restricted or even closed to public commercial air traffic. Further, the transportation system must be adequately prepared to handle a range of emergency services, relief, traveler information and/or evacuation programs through continued and increased investment in communications and transportation technologies such as freeway management systems, traveler information systems and other Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies. Passed this 18`" day of December, 2002 Chair, Pima Association of overnments Regional Council 3 Potential Reauthorization-Related Projects (Order Does Not Indicate Priority) Canamex Corridor Improvements The following Canamex Corridor Improvements will foster economic development and security • Environmental assessment, design and construction of Interstate By-Pass route and access to TIA ■ Sahuarita by-pass east to I-10 ■ Complete study of I-19 linking Pima County study with Santa Cruz County Study to the Border ■ Continuing Border and Corridor projects in general Highway-rail grade separation projects The following Highway-rail grade separation projects are needed torovide additional p itional traffic safety, alleviate congestion, improve/maintain air quality and provide critical access for movement of goods and people in the interest of national security ■ Highway-rail grade separation at I-10/Ina ■ Highway-rail grade separation at I-10/Ruthrauff • Highway-rail grade separation at I-10/La Cholla/Prince ■ Railroad grade separations at 6th Street/9th Ave. • Railroad grade separations at 22nd Street/Santa Rita Park Interstate Mobility Improving mobility between Tucson and Phoenix is needed to enhance statewide safety and economic development; further, that section of Interstate 10 between Tucson and Phoenix is of heightened national significance due to designation asp art of the north-south Canamex Corridor trade route and its functioning asp art of the east-west Southwest Passage trade route. ■ Improve 1-10 Tucson to Phoenix National Park Service Access and Safety The Santa Cruz River Bridge at Twin Peaks project will provide the alternative access that is needed to meet the National Park Service's objective of closing or restricting g traffic on Picture Rocks Road through the Saguaro National Monument West. • Santa Cruz River Bridge at Twin Peaks 4 rV1D (gyp ron-r CD O o 7D ® ® ® ® ® �7 7' d o N , M Hilifi. c r1c 0O•rx-r7713 rr o = 71 c c rD a�,- x 'i,, y rD rD p C O O n o _ � O 7�p ns11 � � �a n o o r0 '.c.:?;".O � D O O s1 to O"� � � 0 N 0 g N N 2 s11 n •3 C s11 0 N rD -y, Q rl ,-7, = p 0 _ D r'* ^T3 rp: 3 3, Q J N N o < • = fi r3 p r�1 Dp DrbbQ — D o'D O 'rn rt7DO • nc , nn. 23 Q1.nOipRI �`D'-'1. cap 2 p o Qrb rb � p. = m o"O N 7D N N 2 a 71 n O rt • < C LI O <'rl0 �.�;7-4- ''r=.,• ,b D ,b 0.._� �'' ((D o rD r S 4 a v, N ,,• v m 731 a • rD �� c sL -' D '� O 2 a s gO H oRQrnoo Oo,� Qn -ornNyN' ` � ,_,,rD�', p p a O' la S � rt n N 0 s11 3 ,�rD O 0 o¢' 71 3 D a D'n , Q. pp z O C D rt, * 3 O 0 Q1 i, N 0 rD 0 N 2 - �-rD 3''0 N -. c_q ^* D ~ n ca. .r-r(JQ C Q r1 O c 9,_.,• vn' 3'rt rD cn 7D p..rl (p rp a. rn 3 n1 0 O E ,,n -,,S m s 3 a,-+• U0 Z • O gyp„ C p rn,• TO = rD-0 0.o ,,0- r- rD s11 ,r1,.") 8 v, O rD rb Qh Q- ,o s31 s11 n 4 c O-p 0-6 �• O-Q D p , a rD O ? p 3 e 3 a' (1) . Q.n -.-Q rn 3 o rD o C C 'D D -, rp p r� • p 0 rp 0 o < 7D r•+ 0-o c D D - , y - n C = to 0 v q▪O 0 7D r-o c' r*c)c, R. n O O O' O �-, l3 " �a r(1)) r, ▪ v z. " 3nona.3l3 p � (0 �vi'o O ccs1 _or"-,N l' Si) n cmc r-r 0 N 9 '700 4,20) • �ooaco e 0 zt' ,"0 N.,5- 0-� �oa° (o o Q.it ?�o :J 0 r-o _• up O --0� z D r 2 C pO 0 O N 0 O % < Pv N O O'Z 5,13 r-r r W 0 y r O N o)o �.O p ^ 50 O ,"'.'<' 7C w ^ry r. ,, y 1 r. C-N 'D S31 s C 0,-,'-0 • • • _ i „AI) • • te• 7D D Q D n s3) D ,-r � ,,, v'•n 0 V7.0 Q c-,-c,-,.-3 �,r, D 7 70 -o -o 71 n rn a, -{Iv ti) cn ca i , x cr '1 aa7' an: v, 0 0 3 �, -o N. - < Sv < O = = r0 C a' ,�'O -0 aO < �v •\,`- , 0 o � o O s, O 90') a> N O = � = 'D Q. =p- -rn+,C 3) C "0 C (D = 0 �.. a 0 �.< N 0 a s1, ,,-N'a o� N c o = � = Iv = n 9 N = r*— -,,.D a o =a = s 0 7' n -S cn r1 =, c C (D ,..f. v C . C r-r , C 'G T,' O o ft) Q. C a_ „v' Q C CD r -® cn l/3= N = N c, v, r rD 'T1 3 r�-r --t S31 (D : VI HUll r- Ca, ,X C Ii! ni N r-r D (D d -n O to' O < 7C� Iv =•4J= H 'U (D iii up 91 O S, v (D , iU = .1 rD ( rt C ,.* r* =tr AA �" L__/' = iv rD rp N H N rf Q 'p • • CL-, -0 N Q- (•n I14 Q- Y1 0 *• r-+o = <= o ua n G� -0 vv, () t -- ,C„ ua 7I ri) O O — -n 0 pia pm �_ '-''FY- rD ro 3 `•" ¢' o_< p smo ® (D O� = r a' p 0 v --I <x,_• rr*" Cu 7, `'. S a 1 R. 7,-"(-) '< N O O �, Sj n (D r�-r 3 -z O �. cn ,� ct %i i,i Z r-r 3 c ='v, fi O 3 sv O :r-,-. rrt V, ▪ IL C al -��• a . : r-r `a 0 3 a c = 1= o C = rD Iv C p' "D O- Q u�a 9Ui -0CT' 05-(D n O oD 0) a o c = _' (D iv x O N .c.-,.. Z7 rn D D a' riL C Q sv so LA r i• rt ,-* O �„ CS `C .... v,'rD c sv Q Q rrt 0 r; S�d' N < C.: aa' r* a 9 7CD rD • . = v, C' O N (D \Y N o N ut L11 n O= = D C C (• -Z P. [gym! $s_._____.,zn_< ,���� ,�_,_r<..,.��_.,,--„_-,�,F.,, _ .,._>.,.._ a 1� r_ A '+ ti� iiifff fgAt3 9 On O N N -0 p r C C' �'(D N 9 rn 3, n.D •-0 n 9 5•-I 6".rn 0 O O cOn O = C-,r.= -Q C Ort rt C . T 0 _ < CD N•< ro1 Q c^ (Dm 3 C -0 0 0 3 p n•"0 con c . . °-00:. -=...,6-' 0 ,_,. •� 0" 7' C ill, . -z 3 2 0 9 CD n 7 ' m a O N O S r(D N ; O r;D rD lD N Q rt N Q (lc' ,(4 c^ r*Sv- _' r,. —N v' Al r-r 0 r-f o N U .C. n O rD a, •= v, ,. 3 3 - rD 0 a, rD n CD rD-0 s11 ."ES p,.,-,'-� 1,D, Q S C, 0 0_5:11 sL 3 'rt 7' o 3 ca r"-5- o < �' O n-a1 Fp' rt. 3 ura 7D ,D O r-r 6'n ,: C • SL •-,, g.,D = O sv C Sv r-r 0 O (D o i3/ 0 -, SL vat.' r.,. . 0 71 N' C CD o n (TO ,, C-p O Q Q r�* C ,-+ r-r r� r+ n C C n -I � o r1 CO -; C ,rt V1 0- o N s31 ,-r Al 0 = rD N rr Q, O .v' -, s11 -, O 3 0 = L 111 cn C N O 5 rD s31-0 C = , C '-ci, ,__. .sL 3 ,7D O' 7D C v, o o iv JD. C S < w -{ v - F' FP-,- p r.O C O • ,2 Q O v'•O a a! N r) rD = iD rD 3 rD N ' 3 o rD N N rt g-C 5- D, O O C O C 0 6 CD sv C f s]J S C r-pO sv 2, O < r0-' v O CD'c -0 ua 'O o r c o rD r-,, N n ',,,i ' , o' ,-r C s>J D Q(ii' 9, cr Q, Tipp S",-C-1 ,..5.;•,-,-. 0-< 0.) O C rt_ N o 61 n O it sL r* c O sv rD c 3) O ,,11 0 Q N 0 sra < C r1 O 0. sv s11 r O �s C r-r Q 0 fi _ -ti, _ N Q C N ai ,-D II.�'Q1 , rD 0 rD Q C rD '0 D O�.. .. t C 0.rD 9, n r1 o C N'0 ) r1 C rD Q sv O T' C sy .n O'rY o C r �Z E O • o N N C Q.O < 3 (Ji E-o CD O N 0 0. :,-;.•0 5.�.,DD a C N N S 0 3•Gl Q s11 0 0 $ 0 3 0 _ s31 Q rn o n c rn c �•' �, . = ,se c -Q' c N v, -r' s31 n O , O n o. c'-,' p o O D..Q-N r9D o 7D po sv ' n.- --o s1) 3 Q --•S. rD C lo!' N Q N - c a -, 0...G Q O v' rD 3 < CL Q(JQ 3 rt fl' C = rt O 7,• o rp-0 C UQ 7D C 0- rD 3 0'O sv Q MI Q `< rD (i..)"'O o Q o ' rD 7D o N rrt N 3 0.- rD o 0 3 0 n 7D rD 3 V "ouQ rD rJ' o'o = •= n1 rrt � -h p 331 fl r- <D 701 F O p, -''n O 0 5.•o o a 3' r, 0 o >r' a '� m {/y 0-c 2 rD--1 o n O o -,< rt o n'U -D 'C rr r*D r+ D,0 n -, O p ), •h O O. S uq o 0-3 rD fD v, ,-n= =. '< N Di c6-8 >G' z z _ _ 'S ;� °* `D o o 0 fti 0 • roD O D fl a C C o k iE. O (r-D,3 3'C r. 2 7',N'rn • rn o. a.• �• Gl CI C ifl rn m No n -"' n 3 "'�a O v, O = rD ua rt 0 a rD n o J o ? -a .�uca • o r* r-r 3 p n 0 O ► .0 N = -o c c n r-r,..r A, < N c v, N xi 3 0 o CD ,`, n 0 n rt) 9,1 r- '� ''*` �. O fi CD r*rt °, CCDD Oo O Oc - 0 N O con '!1 c co N O -p v, 0 O O 4 o-A' 2, D..O O =c = \ A, n Z. '1.r 2) -D 3 D r'0 ,, o o a�3,� O• a 1 01 cD ��O `D = -nuci. st rs -n�,- - O-t o o• '< 3 c, ,o < oc) frt 5 (D 8 fl 3 fl r 0 3 3 p X O . O"a N v' O CD a. O S v, "' (D r r�, C rn ®. `Y i va D Q.D r,,O •• v, rt) rr c L,•r�r a ,. 3 N�•-v N 0 0 = �+uQ o o•ua s v, .-t.,.�„ .�'0 O - f 11 �-s) Er.., 5 i<-0 A, . ST-, D' a N ,•a 0'-a R/D (D O 0 n r_,• r0 Q rD 4. = 3 :P, rD O 0, Uq 99, r-r ,< r�-r�.Gln ?�.,, O -�,N . g E.o c„ r* ' - 0. 0 c CD rn uc' c, A, 3 'LC D O-rD O ,D fl o `t 02 ', `< A' c o � ' `�° �-* ''* � Dfl 0-� D !D •-(up' � � or rD� nn < fl2 y -.. ^72c, 3 .4 I;I ?II!! Rc UHJ r0 y X fl, •(1 c a 0 S'' 13 m - 3 3 o tD '� rn u x v c p-aoGl� O 0 _. `< < = . E �,o0 3 n) oo• � D ° 3 ��' `D - 0 a .. 3 °2 °� ,, r3. r� t o rDa= a r-'D� g uq'a- - 3�-+, = s `< n 3`^ v,= r-* m3 0 8a a, =y csvA, rD9- � r, svv' c-3'Oac '•-+ CD rtno r r D(1' U r-, -I O co ' .4 `< v, N n c n a-4 c r,. c rD N O �--fi C-D A 4 r*7.. Q O In < h' _ CD m N-p-O =uc' f.rt 3 " CD a-n O O Q '� a-, (D ®. (D N a r-+• < 0- a O- X �'O O �' • O O (D `B. �, �, n' o= a Ii!211 n'n _ n -•v3 vr*_ r0N O Q-craon � `noc� 0 a "D O N. al (D 9 rD (1)- (D n N Q' cn O'cn' O O rD = v11.--,,o_ rtrr to a N(-, -, < v, v, n rr D-p D a a rr r-r N rr Cp ` (D O fl r`r Q V1 O CD CD -� N r-r •q N w ---I' O N a N r'q, a 3 r < fl fl o fl A _ 19 y a c a c rD O.(<D v, t•Or C O m 7 v' rt O rD (D r X 0) CD A, 3 n C 3 (DD .rD j v,,Q o v, -0 _ = AI S c fl, rn o E o-,c �' ° fl O " -0 .p "4 DN p o rt s. .o. • a c ' n a rt,Z 3 fr.; Q• `< rr N x v) (D o rD a O , 0 _ O to c p`< rY r-r-, �'? r-,.�.. O ..1 y a' �� (D -+,= X a p C� O 0 � p' - 0 = � � � f-�da",CDD �-,.°0 0 CD 0 V C 0 N o.Q- o a°:.-_:_,L'.=°"<.c o a:ro o ^* ,4• 3 y g c c r* � � o O <ua �-•rt D 0 =-° 3 ) O 3' (D g 3 F,,x cnCD 0 Q( =- C a rte-,• O• N 3' 3 3 (D rn O (D rr a a(D 3 O (D O r0 r0 �„ o ► O UQ O (D rD O'v, O't, <. ,rr O c n o 3 rni 0 CD to' 0 fl < a d O {7,2 m a rD o l' 3 n fl 0`c = O O rf 0 9 CD c r0 ,,, ,i.,03- O rt (D '-O - 's O ' to r r<- (D x §,,, ('1 cr�a n a�' �• N 0 C r0 LQ �' y O a -a (D n ° ^* O , Vi ''+ N -o iv o S ua r A� 3 Al 2 r*c = n0 VQ O E r0 '9 O . "O X -''o° N . 0•`'' 3. r+. tn' = O 0 v, N. CD crao' oanr,.0oET.rrl.� -8ro ' Q.',;3, O 3 O ogr* 'a3con :t:-.30 -� o a1 . St -va= a -60. (D c (D .-CD . c O -, 0 5 D , r-r rr*' v. O N O • O'< O k r-r. s. +"�` .4► < CD r* c O v+ oar cc o'''* D 3 � tp rn ---=rDrn .nc • < v, 3 � cN �„'�.<� 3 -0 -.7-0_ 0 (�0 r0 D O- ... S n r+=,D (Dc rD 3 m 0 r,.O O es a rt a . o S O-n v, r-r CD . 3 c d ( N a -r ^ "! G ,-`< C x (D H rr O O cn 0 Q-fl rn 3 ,� ?"' c u. 3 rr (D O' , c CD 0 0 Z N �. ,- -p in O O 3 D fl n� s. rD a 0 rr O A' M• O 4 rt O a 0 c5 O`C E. 0 Q. O p in -fi rD 3 " "q a - r* O' ff �, r.,_ r-, Eh O - O o-o Tio rn r7 �rD 0..(r?,. <-o ��, ,coa� �•3 C es � c � (.33 ,9 'n2 --Du. a3o ji O 3 x3 v, N 0 rr A, 3 () 0 3 z r0 D s2, rt, O a o (D a.--1 0 N fl C t 3 3 al.A' .v, N-0 N u-, `C fl Q �. a a rr c, .-ur, -< v' �. r r O H rD c 3 uq -, -n .r-�' r: r* D () CD (D N Al a n$ ID rt n, c = 50 0 (Dooc � rtA' m,n� Q o < oA' �.v, A' rn �r0a � -r; ic - rt � 3 ,00N cam' a.� q(D �-om3 r0k9�_'' 0c0 . Noon =,;� o O O et `_ (D 0 r r N p Q A rD fl fl O rr N v, A' (D c �J .- rD = y C. r.-- r(33 rCD a a r*UQ 0 C-D (D c n 3 l0° rr CDD v, �^ rD rD0. r+ .= y CD a (QD O X O f x i (2),,... �D (,),- D cn 21�. 3 3 o o c o z rt-<o j- y, , fl -z D b .`< o o -1 a'-�+- b -0 -a 7 D o r 2 Mgo . rOD C<D`< X nni c CDD rD 94 0 • rD 0 M r0 a rD a b a-0 sv c D •10 a ), O (p -, c �'c rD c c (D J--"'•rD , cu= • Q`� n O 3 Gl G1 O Q =o rho Gl Gl '! y O --),..1 d, a u5Q N a c O . 3 ,. _ D N. Z7 n 0-Q 3'3'" -0 < . < c CD; (D-p (-2, y N N. 3 c -, (- <D 3`' -O fQ � cri 3'Cep rt flg < 9,-0 N � � � � 1•F G>r.a in c r* n rn :ii �-* ° cn c�n'C 5), O O o •� pCO .� y �. A' rDfl'•c'o�n 'CI' A'fl^, rt �o-� x � (v'D � rD ( � ,0, o (� o o�� • _ � �'.�'�o¢;.g"- o O TsU N � � = c� `D � c 0 o n c O• ,=ua x a a_,,,D, O (3 s r-r r r-r fl o Ai UQ 3' `,,�.E,- O 4. 3 = c 3 g 0' n c o r,: .Arr' (tD c n D D 3.O p CO V -' O fD 0- _.N v' v, O c1 p' y a m O 3 Q.(D c O p ,„`< O N (D n ./i n N r, a ro r'1 cn < r,,'' z N (D a rD Q:fl' , r0 ',,, n - A'+ �-O O c N O 0 N v0, O lD rr -r8 v,Q fl _ . 3 O 2 ,7 v, ' O n '� r, rt -,,v, al 9 rD r. rr c (s rr e.o- v, c 0 fl D n D D rp Q. rD u° �^ • °D.�,,O • O O O - 0 -I-c rD < n '� O O (OD n i a Ort 0' '1),,_ " '� n�• '� O- D 0 a"3 t.`G O 3. -n0 CCDN0 (D OCDrDrD < 3to rD0 tortl O a L I (D 3 ar*c-. v, 0 r-'• S1 = CD. (D v,a r*c 3 (D < cnrDa(D D. - Es....' to rp a p fl O A, (D -, rr r-, 'ro n O" g ,c 3 0� - O 0 ua 0 (D � n CD rr , n �' CD � < = rr s" n p-(0 3 � fl r-r � r*� �! CD rt TJ fl 3 Art' a rD 3 0 0 O rC-r O v' p < CD A' O E D a O rD ,, r*n A' r C O Q. 3 C O cn c ad,, c CD 3 3 O CD O A' c N q ti O O. .�. -� -- ,, rr rc, C --I 0• Vl .� '-'' y,p ' 3 < CD rD 3 , ,, v, a c LK) r0 - r0 r-+• O = 0) N 3 r-r O lc; r-r n c'q 3 O r-r 5. u� c rD rnr v' A) rD 0-0, (D N O a '-} N O O • rr r-r O r0 T a rD 2 r7 II" n < C fl fl c c ,- v1 `-+, „,, ,D -.`jrD o c c-D,Q' a N rt{D O O`,.n Oc SCD r .. n<” rD rrt = rt rr(_'l (D'S(D p, crit �•° Z _ N c rr. rD .rD N O -� -, Gl "„:12,3 _� a .it N r---; O "Z-0v,rv'r 3 c .rDn c-r O $ 0 p p O ID O CD r*CD O p 0'r-, Q. .. x• � AJ�1•r*O A, st 0-a a n CDC O �c rt ua r7 3-3 5. 0 o° ° - o .�� � 0 0'= 'N O (D S'n rn rt o in - . N O co (D a O N A' ro ro n.fl r0 @ N r r D N ° r0 t'a O - 5.T ,-,,.< O�-O rct v, rr'II C r0 D tin cyi, rn-t (D v 3 N O uct �•CD �,. 0 rD N A' 3 `' rZ O 'crDD r-r N t fl r0 C 3` 3 -fin O D ID p rt 'n cn o. S < 3 c r*< • a" O ; DW - -.0C =c _ `< fD rt v, A' rD a -fi. o rn ro 0 d ,< r~D c a -, O c rD c n O rD c v-,0 a 1 Gla(D Eh O N il'"0 •_ rt .o (D c r+3 (D 0-c o o c fl � v-r v,- c 3 3 N'c �0 0 3 _''a ECD (�D Q rD 3 ,v'-r rv',.N '< O D rrDD , A' Q. Q C CSD a r�r`_. < J < c' 3 A' A' N fl. p uQ Cp 3 v (D a -p N O A,' CD u0 c CD(rtD rti •rv'i -O a uo 3'3•S O�0 (7D O r*a c -fin -1-0 a" 'W Q'A' -•-I v1 r'rr 2- -1 rr-O rr -,,,< -, (p n-.-O A' c O CD a-, c A' c 3 S.n c., v, -0-0 ,-,• n "� y a. 0 o o A� < (D , ES n Ate, r r A' CD n (D v' c A' -,�..A' (D r�r-s A' CD 3 C rD rD Q-r0 O .� O O -rr v, r n c 0 FDL A' . v' N N (D O•rD TD r-r D D O r0 GQ - - go !. c_.• 0D D r•r '�' < Oa<a0 cpn .n iil 'i -r, � n �•, N j(D c v, A' ,, n '81 r-rn Q.O QOp -a •'t 3 a r7O'-,,rr(D p rNr� O O r0 ''h DcnT3 O Q � �.�. N �c rr N v, n' C� O A' c0 cnfl -8 N71 0 E. -, 0 r0 H ly('Q O rt n'AJ y r-r Q '� r-,:0 DI 0(13(D c CD (D a c rD N Q c rt rD rD N (D St al 0 O n n rD r0 a~* r+ N r* O s• ( 2- ,7 CD Cp„Q 7 rD-D St v, N a r9--� . CD 0 , O N A, P r^,. CDD 0 N o O`Q o ry0 O' O 3 u ( 2D < CD n r (0 O• C = CCD v, 3 O rcr(D cn'c u4 ,0 3 11 _ a c a A' `no �+,C N P. .� (D T c Si- CD n 0 O 31 n (' [3), e '9,A' ,�, 0 < rn o 00 3 a FE„). r0 -p D Q O 'O (D c *o = ri. r rD rr 3(IQ.(D a c c O `^ . n (D D ) N rr rp n r O cgi, = `.^ p O CD S cm < rc,.3 0- -, '- rrt A' 3• rc-r."rl -I 't M 0 '0 r`f•rD r-r' 0 do-.A' r7 .. N 0 = MD rr ('D (D `G N rD N 0)rD N D`C N V V 0- „Ii.' d 0 ig z' n•r�-r.c)rD rfl-,• co n , J*X a- v' 2--fH A' N 3 A, L;----,.c o c, CDN w 3-n N N fl,t o ? n fl Q- so xi n E-rr 3 0 (D C>'' ,o' M c PD < ,-rnD c (D N 0-0 rr rt, ,..r rD r* A' -O ! g r79-?.?a rt A''< ,- D C 7 a rD rND a-*coo-o % N 3 0 3 8 c o a O O fl D 0 M •O •2 D< n S A' • = r-r 3 0 c C .rt CD F X N a<un 0 fl 0 �• .o CO° c c r Gl -• c CD A, uca uo rt r v' A, ., v, -� �J -S c c (D -, r-r N"D c CD CD- p' - x-o 3 a -av'A' v' ,,-- uca c g:0 ° ° Q.t1< r-,-Y, 0.3, ,.t tD o auca g O �. n,< v a A,`< „' c .o c c c v, Q -, ro D .-, fl O N n p r+o- cr. • (D g CD D r-r rD p D a-a N 3 (D un O C r0 r`,. � r-r r-,• '_ c'(D ,D = A' 0• r c 3 ,,, A, c> O rD °i ° ,_* V v, rt m 3 0 O=`< n F-',. a? N 3 .< " rD c s.I ua (D ah o (D c ,3 g O v, rt O O CD , (0 3 p n 'C A' -,,O c a-- 3 r O '- 3 c CD - A, a A' CD 3 0 ( (D rr LD a 3 l'p fl`,,‹ ; 0 ,fly, O Oh ' r,.cii,C o r,-O -i 3 c ,r,(D r3D c n 0 a D "'O `^ 3 3---- fl.$Ora.. (00 z y 3i Q' (D.� -rr v' O V) CD . A' O O .rt--F__) v1 i,{4..< 3 3`< rD c CD N O r0 r-} D ^uo .-. (T) ,,,; .A' A' d 2 u�Q A, c - N CD rar CD 3 4 3 (rDD (D v, O _.• N .0 i„ C) i 0 O n c;' < D FD-t, CD , c _c s --051- Q Gl = _ N (D T • NEWS J FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 20, 2003 Media Contact: Damon Gross (602) 250-2269 Page of 1 Web site: www.aps.com COALITION AGREES TO REFORM OF STATE TRUST LANDS Final Draft Expected by 2004 PHOENIX— Atter three years, a coalition of stakeholders has agreed to a framework for a comprehensive reform of Arizona State Trust Lands. Terms of the agreement are attached. The coalition, made up of representatives from the education, conservation, development and ranching communities, expects to have a final draft of necessary constitutional and legislative changes by the beginning of 2004. "This is an unprecedented agreement among very diverse groups," said Ed Fox, Vice President of Communications, Environment and Safety for APS and the coalition's chair. "The devil is in the details, but we are optimistic of success because these reforms represent important programmatic changes that will increase the value of the trust while conserving significant lands." APS, Arizona's largest and longest-serving electricity utility, serves more than 902,000 customers in 11 of the state's 15 counties. With headquarters in Phoenix, APS is the largest subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp. (NYSE: PNW) -30- State Land Department Reform Proposal November 20, 2003 • The goal of state trust land reform is to increase revenues for the benefit of the public schools and other beneficiaries through better management and planning of trust lands while conserving significant lands. This goal is expressed in the process as: "Obtaining the economic value for the Trust while maximizing lands for natural open space." • A new Board of Trustees will be created to set policy for the Land Department, approve annual budgets, approve conceptual land plans prepared in conjunction with general and comprehensive plans of local communities, approve 5-year disposition plans and oversee major dispositions. The Board is intended to safeguard the mission of the Trust. • The Board of Trustees will be authorized to approve up to a specified percentage of proceeds from the dispositions of trust lands to adequately fund the Land Department relative to its Trust responsibilities, including management, planning and disposition practices. The goal is to make the Trust self-supporting. • The existing statutory framework, including the Urban Lands Act and Arizona Preserve Initiative, as well as applicable elements of Growing Smarter, will be merged into a unified planning and disposition framework for trust lands, which will include: • Enhancing the existing requirement for coordination between communities and the Land Department in the preparation of general/comprehensive and conceptual land plans and creating a mechanism to resolve differences between the Land Department and local community plans. Communities will be required to treat trust lands for conceptual planning purposes, comparable to similarly situated private lands in the same community. • Empowering the Land Department to classify land within conceptual planning areas as "conservation suitable" or"development suitable" according to objective criteria. Those trust lands classified as "conservation suitable" will be permanently conserved without direct monetary payment to the Trust when economic value in the form of development entitlements is irrevocably obtained or other compensation deemed adequate by the Board of Trustees is received. • Authorizing the Land Department to apply disposition tools commonly used by private landowners when disposing of trust lands for development: • Authorizing the Land Department to make dedications for roads, trails, drainage- ways and utility corridors when it is determined that doing so is in the best interests of the Trust. Currently, such lands must be sold at development value. • In areas that are not required to be conceptually planned, i.e., rural areas, the Land Department is authorized: • to extend the lessee an option for renewal of a 10-year grazing lease, without auction or competitive bidding, on condition that the lessee files an annual report that includes data pertinent to the condition of the land and that the lessee complies with lease terms that include livestock management practices to Protect rangeland health and a Land Department site visit at mid-term, which visit shall be followed by a report assessing rangeland health and including recommendations concerning the correction of deficiencies, if any, such report to be provided to the lessee. • to enter into grazing leases of up to 25 years, without auction or competitive bidding, in areas that are not within the 10-year conceptual planning horizon and where appropriate conservation values are present, upon application by an existing lessee and Board of Trustees approval of a lease that includes a management plan demonstrating a materially enhanced level of stewardship; and • to enter into mitigation leases of up to 99 years, without auction or competitive bidding, in areas that are not within the 10-year conceptual planning horizon and where appropriate conservation values are present, upon application and Board of Trustees approval. • Ten-year grazing leases would remain subject to termination upon reclassification, after notice and payment to the lessee of the fair market value of Land Department approved improvements, whereas 25-year stewardship leases and 99-year mitigation leases would not. • If another party has notified the Land Department (per the existing notice process) that such party would like to enter into a lease for lands where the Land Department has determined that the existing grazing lessee has failed to comply with the terms of a 10- year grazing lease, but the Land Department has nevertheless re-issued the 10-year grazing lease to the non-complying lessee, such other party may appeal such decision to the Board of Trustees, who may sustain the decision or remand the lease to the Commissioner for further consideration (the Board of Trustees' decision is non- appealable and final), provided that any further decision to re-issue the lease to the non- complying lessee is also appealable to the Board. • Certain trust lands with significant conservation value that have been identified as "incentive" lands will be conserved as part of the package and other "option" lands will be reserved for disposition at fair market value, as determined by appraisal based on the conceptual plan for the larger land area adjacent to or within which the option lands are located. For lands that are conceptually planned, a time frame for resolution of the option lands will be established by the Board of Trustees that shall be a minimum of 5-years except that certain specified option lands that are ripe for disposition shall he identified by the Commissioner with a shorter time frame. Except as may be provided elsewhere in the package it is the intent of the parties not to dispose of any lands for less than full value other than the incentive and option lands in this package for not less than 25-years. • Authorize exchanges between the Land Department and other public bodies in order to initially facilitate the conservation of certain "priority exchange" lands with significant conservation value that have been identified and, thereafter, other lands if the Board of Trustees determines that doing so is in the best interests of the trust beneficiaries. Contacts: Bas Aja Arizona Cattleman's Association (602) 267-1129 Lisa Atkins County Board of Supervisors (602)452-4500 Steve Betts (602) 530-8433 Ed Fox Arizona Public Service Company (APS) (602) 250-2916 Grady Gammage (602) 256-4469 Maeve Johnson Valley Partnership (602) 266-7844 x4 Spencer Kamps/Becky Burnham Central Arizona Home Builders (602) 770-0063 /(602) 522-0201 Penny Kotterman Education Community (602) 264-1774 x136 Andy Laurenzi Conservation Partners (520) 290-0898 Steve Olson League of Cities and Towns (480) 312-2423 Mark Winkleman/Richard Hubbard State Land Department (602) 542-4621 /(602) 542-4621 Pima Association of Governments Regional Assembly 177 N Church Ave., Suite 405 • Tucson AZ 85701 • (520) 792-1093 PAG Regional Assembly A joint meeting of the Councils/Boards of Pima County, City of Tucson, City of South Tucson, Town of Marana, Town of Oro Valley, Town of Sahuarita, Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. January 23, 2004 5:30 P.M. Dinner(by invitation) 6:30 P.M. Assembly Tucson Convention Center, Apache/Cochise Meeting Rooms 260 S. Church, Tucson, Arizona. Mayor Paul Loomis, Town of Oro Valley and Chair of the Pima Association of Governments Regional Council, will be presiding Estimated Topics Comments Duration JOINT PIMA COUNTY/CITIES/TOWNS MEETING 2 mins. 1. CALL TO ORDER—Mayor Loomis 2 mins. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Mayor Loomis 6 mins. 3. ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTIONS—Mayor Loomis. 4. BRIEFING ON FEDERAL REAUTHORIZATION 10 mins. 4A. PRESENTATION - Mr. Kevin Biesty—ADOT - Legislative Liaison will brief the Assembly on Federal Reauthorization. 10 mins. 4B. DISCUSSION—Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. OVER � . f Estimated Topics Comments Duration 5. PAG's 2004 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS 5 mins. 5A. PRESENTATION— Gary Hayes—PAG Executive Director and Cherie Campbell—PAG Transportation Planning Director will brief the Assembly on PAG's 2004 Legislative Positions 5 mins. 5B. DISCUSSION—Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. 6. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT 6A. PRESENTATION— Arlan Colton will brief the 15 mins. Assembly on proposed legislative changes to the State Land Department. 15 mins. 6B. DISCUSSION—Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. 7. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 7A. PRESENTATION— Gary Hayes—PAG 15 mins. Executive Director and Cherie Campbell—PAG Transportation Planning Director will brief the Assembly on recent activities to re-establish the RTA 15 mins. 7B. DISCUSSION—Mayor Loomis will lead an open discussion to allow the Assembly to ask questions and discuss regional strategies. 2 mins. 8. ADJOURNMENT—Mayor Loomis NOTE: Parking at the TCC is free in parking lot "A" off of Church Street. la ■, 1 [ , ., � � ayy i, , s � {�.. ,.,e, , . .,„ r., Ais.,,, , oc , .. ,,,,,i, , , , 1 , , . ,. ._,..,, ,.,,,,,, ,. .,. ,,,, ,,_, , ,, ..._ , :.: ,‘,,,,_..__ ,..,,, , rncBEnftfi Tms1 f t AutriIy1' PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY A Report to the Pima Association of Governments' Regional Council Tanis J. Salant November 2003 MiL UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA s TucsoN AxaoNA This study was sponsored by the Pima Association of Governments. The Institute for Local Government wishes to thank the many elected officials, transportation experts and legal analysts, particularly those in the city of Tucson's Attorney's Office and the Arizona House of Representatives, who contributed to this report. Thanks also to Alexis Hover, Senior Research Specialist, for producing this report and to PAG for printing it. © 2003 Institute for Local Government School of Public Administration and Policy Eller College of Business and Public Administration The University of Arizona P.O. Box 210108, Room 405 s i ll1 s Tucson, Arizona 85721-0108 111 520/621-2045 www.eller.arizona.edu/spap/ilg INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVIRNMENT ►► CONTENTS List of Tables I IV Introduction I 1 PAG's Organizational Status I 2 PAG as the RTA I 3 Funding the RTA I 4 Spending the RTF I 4 Adopting a Transportation Excise Tax I 5 Functioning as the RTA I 6 Responding to PAG as the RTA I 6 Governing MAG and Valley Metro I 7 Summary I 10 Consulted Sources I 11 Appendices I A. Estimating Revenue Capacity I 15 B. Governing Other RTAs I 19 C. Presentation to the Regional Council I 25 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: TET Revenue Estimates of Member Jurisdictions I 5 Table 2: MAG Weighted Voting I 8 Table 3: Local Transit Taxes in Maricopa County I 9 Table IA: TET Revenue Estimates of Member Jurisdictions 1 16 Table 2A: Population Estimates of Member Jurisdictions I 17 Table 3A: Net Assessed Values of Member Jurisdictions I 17 Table 4A: Percentages of Population, Excise Tax Revenues and I 18 Assessed Values of Member Jurisdictions I Table 1B: Types of Regional Transportation Organizations I 21 iv PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION were submitted to PAG staff and regional council members for review, and The Regional Council of the Pima presentations of findings were made to Association of Governments (PAG) PAG's Management Committee on approached the University of Arizona's November 13 and PAG's Regional Council on Institute for Local Government to develop November 19. an action plan for how PAG could become and function as a regional transportation authority (RTA) within Pima County and the The report first considers the current Tucson urbanized area. The request also organizational status of PAG. Next it sought identification of the legal and addresses the mandated and optional practical steps required, the unique requirements for operating as the RTA, as circumstances and impacts on PAG well as the powers and duties of the member jurisdictions such an action would governing body, revenue raising capabilities, bring about, and new responsibilities for and the regional road transportation fund. PAG as the RTA. Such an authority would The report then suggests some legislative have the power to develop its own revenue changes that would enable PAG to function source dedicated to regional transportation as the RTA. It then summarizes the various and to acquire transit and other operations types of revenues that comprise the road of a regional nature. In the course of fund, with emphasis on a transportation research, it was discovered that PAG is excise tax. Following the revenue section is already authorized to be the RTA. a summary of interview topics and responses. An appendix presents revenue capacity tables, models of other regional Preparation of the report began in July transportation authorities, and the 2003 and concluded in November 2003. A powerpoint presentation made to the variety of reference materials were Regional Council. consulted throughout the process, including state statutes and session law, federal law, metropolitan planning organization by-laws and publications, charters, and research reports. During the months of September and October interviews were conducted with regional council members, management staff, state transportation officials, and other key parties in regional transportation. Further, legislative analysts and civil attorneys were consulted at length on the meaning of relevant statutes. Finally, drafts PAG'S ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS Metropolitan Planning Organization The Pima Association of Governments is Arizona Governor Jack Williams authorized to function as three organizations. designated PAG as the Metropolitan (A fourth, that of Transportation Management Area, is a federal requirement set forth in the Planning Organization (MPO) for Pima Federal Highway Administration's "Federal- County on December 14, 1973. As the Aid Policy Guide.") The three types are MPO, PAG is responsible for coordinating summarized below: a regional transportation planning Council of Governments process and for distributing federal PAG was first created as the transportation funding to member Council of Governments (COG) for Pima jurisdictions. There are eight MPOs in County on December 7, 1970. It was Arizona. formed as a nonprofit corporation under the provisions of Title X, Chapter 1, Article 16, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). PAG's initial purposes included providing Regional Transportation Authority a forum for the discussion and study of PAG was designated the RTA for regional problems of mutual interest, Pima County under A.R.S. Title 48, insuring maximum efficiency and Chapter 30 on October 1, 1997. As economy in governmental operations, the RTA, PAG is a special taxing district. comprehensively planning for the solution Maricopa County's Valley Metro is the of regional problems requiring multi-city, other RTA in Arizona. town and county cooperation, preparing for future growth and development, and facilitating agreements among jurisdic- tions to address common problems. There are six COGs in Arizona. Page 3 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority PAG AS THE RTA meeting and determine its officers, terms, and procedures." PAG's Regional Council is also designated as the RTA Governing Board, As the nonprofit COG and MPO, PAG is so it isn't clear if membership is intended to governed by a nine-member Regional include all members of the Regional Council Council. Members include elected or only the six specified in statutes. In officials of the county, the five appears, however, that in practice the RTA municipalities, the two tribes, and the board of directors and PAG's Regional southern Arizona representative to the Council are essentially the same. Arizona State Transportation Board. Governing structure is determined by the Regional Council and established in PAG Method of Voting by-laws. Each member has one vote when Each director has one vote in determining g determining mining transportation policy. transportation policy. In addition, the Governance of the RTA, however, is set representatives of Pima County and Tucson forth in statute. A.R.S. Title 48, Chapter must approve the regional transportation 30 comprehensively addresses all aspects plan and the taxation question before the of regional transportation authorities in board can request the county board of "counties with a population of more than supervisors to put the measure before voters. four hundred thousand but less than one million two hundred thousand persons [i.e., Pima County]." This section of the Powers of the Board report summarizes the legal parameters within which Pima Count 's RTA ma The duties and responsibilities of the RTA y y board of directors include the following: operate: jurisdiction, governing body, g method of voting, powers and duties of the board, and executive director and • Determine the public transportation staff. system to be acquired and constructed • Determine the financing of the system Jurisdiction • Determine whether e to operate the The RTA may operate in all or parts of system or to contract out operations Pima County. Jurisdiction is determined • Approve a request for an election to the the governingbody. county supervisors board of after formal approval of the 10-year transportation Governin Bodyplan. If yes, the ballot is to contain: g A measure to levy an excise tax specify that the RTA governing body, called the board of directors, is Elements of the 10-year plan composed of one member from each of the • ppchanges A roval of in the 10-year municipalities and the county for a total of six plan (if members. The board is to appoint a chairman any) from among its members "at the first official • Produce a five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that contains • Federal and state funds specifically the following: designated for the RTF . Projects funded from the regional • Fares and other user charges transportation fund • Bondp roceeds . Description of each project and its source of funding . Identification of which jurisdictions SPENDING THE RTF will implement the TIP • Approve the annual budget The Arizona Department of Revenue • Hire employees and set salaries estimates that a one-half cent transportation excise tax would generate • Coordinate implementation of the $55 million per year. Part of the fund, to be 10-year plan determined in the 10-year regional • Issue bonds transportation plan, must be spent on public transportation. (Public • Distribute Regional Transportation transportation is defined in statute as Fund monies "local transportation of passengers by means of a public conveyance, including para-transit.") In addition, statutes require Executive Director and Staff that each municipality in Pima County, The executive director and staff of PAG except the city of Tucson, receive a check may serve as the executive director and for $300,000 or 1 percent of the excise tax staff of the RTA. revenues, whichever is greater. Further, PAG must receive from $0 to $300,000 to hire "professional planning, technical and FUNDING THE RTA administrative staff to develop the 10-year plan." The RTF may then be used to finance roadway improvements, controlled In 1997 the Arizona Legislature also access highways, parkways and arterials, created a regional transportation fund arterial upgrades, grade separations, (RTF) for Pima County's RTA. The RTF is transit improvements for buses, express divided into three accounts: a bond routes, connecting terminals, ridesharing, account, a construction account for excise van pool fleet acquisition, park and ride tax revenues, and a bond proceeds lots, express and light rail systems, and account. The fund is comprised of several bicycle and pedestrian projects. These types of revenue: various elements must be specified in the • Transportation excise tax revenues ballot measure and approved by voters. • Contributions from member jurisdictions (e.g., LTAF, HURF, Voters must also approve any changes to impact fees) the voter-approved regional transportation • Public or private rants, gifts or plan. If any jurisdiction requests a change to g donations the plan, however, the change does not need to go before voters if the jurisdiction pays for all the costs of the change. Page 5 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority ADOPTING A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXCISE TAX With statutory authority, the RTA could adopt a transportation excise tax (TET) up to 10 percent of the state rate of 5 percent—a one-half cent tax on sales. The tax base would be consistent with that of the state, and thus exclude food for home preparation and other categories and higher rates that only municipalities can impose. As noted earlier, the Arizona Department of Revenue estimates that a one-half cent sales tax would generate $55 million per year, based on 2003 collections. If approved by voters, the Regional Council would appoint a fiscal agent to administer the fund; revenues would be sent to the State Treasurer and deposited into the RTF construction account. Table 1 presents estimates on the revenue generating capacity of PAG member jurisdictions. The table shows that about 74 percent would be generated in the city of Tucson. (Appendix A contains additional tables on member populations and assessed values.) Table 1: TET Revenue Estimates of Member Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Revenue Percentage Marana $3.6 million 6.4% Oro Valley $1.4 million 2.6% Pascua Yaqui 0 0 Pima County Unincorp. $8.5 million 15.5% Sahuarita $.6 million 1.1% moo South Tucson $.5 million .9% Tohono O'odham 0 0 Tucson $40.4 million 73.5% TOTALS: 8 $55 million 100% NOTE: Estimates based on unaudited collection for FY 2003 of Governments as the Regional Pima Association Transportation Authority Page .g FUNCTIONING AS THE RTA authority. Thirty-six people were interviewed either in person or by tele- phone. Interviews were held during the Several steps must be taken before months of September and October 2003. PAG could function as the RTA. First, it (A list of respondents is included in must secure enabling legislation for taxing Consulted Sources). Depending on the authority. Second, it must prepare a 10- nature of the jurisdiction or agency, year regional transportation plan (or modify about seven open-ended topics were its 2001-2025 Regional Transportation introduced concerning the feasibility and Plan, required by the federal government implications of operating as the RTA. A and approved by the Regional Council in summary of topics and responses 2001). Third, it must draft a ballot follows. measure that includes elements of the 10- year plan, revenue sources for each element, and the transportation excise tax, FUNCTIONING AS THE RTA among other questions. A majority of RTA Respondents overwhelmingly favored members, includingthe Pima Countyand PAG functioning as the RTA and playing a Tucson representatives, must approve the larger role in regional transportation g ballot measure before the Regional Council matters. A majority also favored granting can request the Board of Supervisors to PAG taxing authority. One official call for an election. A simple majority of declared that Pima County would be in voters is required to pass the measure, "big trouble" if PAG didn't receive taxing and election costs must be borne by the preferred authority. Another a local tax RTA. on gasoline (Arizona local governments cannot tax gasoline). Several respondents viewed PAG seeking and Other changes to existing law might winning legislative approval for taxation include lengthening the duration of the tax as the first step regional re ional cooperation. and the RTP and expanding the membership of the RTA board of directors to include representatives of the Tohono VOTER SUPPORT O'odham Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe and theArizona State Transportation Board. Respondents agreed that voters p would likely support the regional tax measure if they liked the transportation RESPONDING TO PAG AS THE RTA plan and if the ballot specified how the funds would be spent. Further, they thought the measure would have a better k The Regional Council requested that chance if elected officials of all member g its management ement committee jurisdictions actively campaigned for to members, and officials of related passage. agencies and organizations be interviewed on a number of issues regarding the regional transportation Page 7 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Council should "lead the advance, a Respondents overwhelmingly favored dangerous but necessary game." gY retaining the current membership and voting system of the Regional Council, at least for GOVERNING MARICOPA ASSOCIATION now. Regional Council members have one OF GOVERNMENTS AND VALLEY vote each (called a numerical system). However, sitting astheMETRO RTA board of directors, Pima County and the city of Tucson The governance of the state's other RTA would both need to approve the ballot has significance for Pima County's. This language constituting, in effect, a veto over section summarizes the structure of both the plan and other ballot elements. Some the RTA and the MPO in Maricopa County. interest was expressed in a weighted voting Planning and transit are separate in system, but most would not support making Maricopa County. The Maricopa Association major changes at this time. For example, of Governments (MAG) is the nonprofit COG some cautioned that weighted voting would and MPO, while Valley Metro is the special squeeze out the smaller jurisdictions, and taxing district, formerly called the Regional another declared that "The ability to hold a Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). weighted vote is important, even if it is not MAG is governed in by-laws and Valley used; it would be a catalyst for compromise." Metro in statute. PAG ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE MAG's role is to provide planning for Most respondents did not favor changingtransportation, air and water quality, p regional l develo ment and organization now. If we g p human services. or expanding the Federal law also had the capability [to become an RTA]," asks requires that the MPO one member, "how do we do it in a manner control the regional area road fund. The that preserves PAG and uses its tools?" county, 25 cities and towns, two tribes, ADOT, and the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee are members. Voting WAYS FOR PAG TO INCREASE VISIBILITY AND in MAG is based on a numerical system, but INFLUENCE IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MATTERS members may call for a weighted vote based on percentage of total population of Respondents suggested numerous ways member jurisdictions. (Table 2 presents the in which PAG could play a bigger role in weighted votes.) MAG's Regional Council regional transportation issues. Those produced a white paper in 2000 that called included providing stronger leadership, for a modified governance model that developing better skills of consensus included the business community and building and persuasion, developing a contiguous counties impacted by its plans uniform vision (for its "12.6 percent" state (i.e., Pinal and Yavapai counties). dollars), looking at regional transportation Legislation signed into law in May 2003— holistically rather than jurisdiction by HB 2292--codified a transportation policy p Y jurisdiction, and becoming advocates, committee that featured the business "doers" and activists for regional community, enabled two counties and transportation policy (rather than just contingent cities (i.e., Apache Junction) to planners). As one observed, the Regional p Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page : become members, and called fora 20-year Table 2 transportation excise tax extension measure in 2004, subject to certain conditions. MAG MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND REGIONAL COUNCIL WEIGHTED VOTING Transportation excise tax revenues are deposited into a regional area road fund Member Agencies #of Votes controlled by MAG and administered by ADOT. RC MC The fund provides the principal source of 1. Apache Junction 1 1 funding for the regional freeway system, and a 2. Avondale 1 1 portion must be shared with Valley Metro for 3. Buckeye 1 1 transit. 4. Carefree 1 1 5. Cave Creek 1 1 Valley Metro was created by statute in 6. Chandler 6 6 1985 as a special taxing district with a one- 7. El Mirage 1 1 half cent transportation excise tax. Its 8. Fountain Hills 1 1 governing body develops a regional transit 9. Gila Bend 1 1 plan and submits it to MAG's Regional Council 10. Gila River Indian Community 1 1 for approval. Elements of the plan have no regional funding source of their own. Nineteen 11. Gilbert 4 4 entities are members of Valley Metro. 12. Glendale 7 7 Membership requires the expenditure on 13. Goodyear 1 1 public transportation of a percentage of each 14. Guadalupe 1 1 member's Local Transportation Assistance 15. Litchfield Park 1 1 Fund (LTAF). Valley Metro's voting system is 16. Maricopa County(Unincorp.) 7 7 also numerical with the option of calling for a 17. Mesa 13 13 weighted vote; the weight is based on total 18. Paradise Valley 1 1 population of member jurisdictions and capped at 40 percent. 19. Peoria 3 3 20. Phoenix 43 43 21. Queen Creek 1 1 22. Salt River Pima-Maricopa 1 1 Indian Community 23. Scottsdale 7 7 24. Surprise 1 1 25. Tempe 5 5 26. Tolleson 1 1 27. Wickenburg 1 1 28. Youngtown 1 1 29. ADOT 1 1 30. Valley Metro 0 1 (Management Committee Only) 31. CTOC 1 0 (Regional Council Only) TOTAL 116 116 Source: Maricopa Association of Governments Page 9 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority LOCAL TRANSIT TAXES IN MARICOPA COUNTY Four cities in Maricopa County have recently enacted local transportation excise taxes for transit. They are listed below in table 3. Table 3: Local Transit Taxes in Maricopa County Jurisdiction Year Tax Tempe 1996 one-half cent sales tax one-half cent sales tax for Mesa 1998 transit, parks and recreation, police and fire four-tenths of 1 percent for Phoenix 2000 local bus service, light rail, and neighborhood mini bus service one-half cent transit sales tax, Glendale 2001 modeled after Phoenix's "Transit 2000" Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page 1 SUMMARY The Pima Association of Governments exists as three entities: a council of governments, a metropolitan planning organization, and a regional transportation authority. PAG must secure permission from the Arizona Legislature to impose a transportation excise tax, develop a 10-year regional transportation plan, and receive region-wide voter approval before it can fully function as the RTA. A.R.S. Title 48, Chapter 30 lays out the parameters of the regional transportation authority in Pima County. It gives voters the final say in plans, funding, and expenditures. It guarantees Ma ra na, Oro Valley, Sahuarita and South Tucson at least $300,000 "off the top" of excise tax revenues every year. It protects the two largest jurisdictions--Pima County and the city of Tucson—by giving each a veto over ballot language. Moreover, it specifies that when a jurisdiction requests a change to the voter- approved transportation plan, that change has to be approved by voters unless t h e jurisdiction pays for all of the costs of the change. Chapter 30 was drafted before membership on PAG's Regional Council expanded, and it calls for a plan (and tax) of 10 years instead of 20. Reinstating taxing authority and amending Chapter 30 to expand membership and extend the duration of the plan and tax to 20 years do not appear to be difficult tasks. Page 11 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Consulted Sources REPORTS, WEB SITES AND LAWS Arizona Revised Statutes, Titles 28, 42, and 48; House Bill 2292 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDOC=/legtext46leg/1r/summary/h%2Eh "Article of Amendment To Articles of Incorporation Of the Pima Association of Governments." August 30, 2002. i Broadening Involvement in The Maricopa Association of Governments: Organizing for the 21st Century." Phoenix: Maricopa Association of Governments, nd. City of Tucson Department of Transportation, "Transit Management Options for the City of Tucson: Final Report." Tucson: July 16, 1999. Maricopa County Department of Transportation, "Regional Transportation Summit 2002." Phoe- nix: July 2002. Metro, "About the Charter." http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=211 Metro, "Metro Charter." Portland, Oregon: May 21, 2002. Metro, "Metro Code." http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticlelD=987 Metro Regional Services, "Metro Charter Reform: Report to the Metro Council by Governor Bar- bara Roberts." Portland, OR: Metro Regional Services, July 5, 2000. National Association of Regional Councils Web Site http://www.narc.org/homepage.html "Options for a Regional Transportation Authority in Pima County: Panel Discussion." Tucson: Women's Transportation Seminar and American Society of Civic Engineers, September 11, 2003. Pima Association of Governments: "BYLAWS." Adopted June 26, 2002. Pima Association of Governments, "Connecting People, Places and Possibilities: 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Tucson: nd. Pima Association of Governments, "2001-2025 Regional Transportation Plan," Tucson: January 24, 2001. Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page 12 Pima Association of Governments, "The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Key Documents and Issues (A Briefing Notebook for PAG Regional Council Members). April 2003. Pima Association of Governments: "The Pima Association of Governments 2030 Regional Transportation Plan: Vision & Goals." Tucson: April 2003. Pima Association of Governments, "Tucson Metropolitan Community Information Data Summary." Tucson: 2003. Pima Association of Governments, "Intermediate Range Regional Transit Plan." Tucson: February 2001. Pima Association of Governments, "2003-2007 PAG TIP." Tucson: August 21, 2002. Pima Association of Governments, "2002 Population Handbook." Tucson: July 2002. Pivo, Gary. "Two Recent Cases of Regional Transportation Funding." Tucson: Office of Economic Development, The University of Arizona, November 12, 2003. San Diego Association of Governments, "Proposition A: San Diego Transportation Improvement Program." San Diego: July 31, 1987. Southern Growth Policies Board, "Reinventing the Wheel: New Models for Southern Leader- ship." Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: 2003. "The Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program." http://www.planning.dot.gov Uebel, Elisabeth, City of Tucson Attorney's Office. Memorandum: Status of Sunset of Regional Transportation Authority Transportation Excise Tax Imposition Authorization. November 21, 2003. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination: A Primer for Working Together to Improve Transpor- tation Safety, Reliability, and Security." http://www/fhwa.dot.gov U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Metropolitan Transporta- tion Planning and Programming." 23 CFR 450C OPI: HEP http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/Cfr450c.htm Page 13 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authorit INTERVIEWS Cooper, Dan, Office of the Metro Attorney. E-mail correspondence, September 8, 2003. Detrick, Brad, City of Tucson Attorney's Office. Telephone interview September 9, 2003. Driggs, Ken, Valley Metro. Telephone interview, September 22, 2003. Halikowski, John, Arizona House of Representatives Transportation Committee Staff Analyst. Telephone interviews September 8, 9, October 15, November 18, and E-mail correspondence September 10, 2003. Juergens, Kathleen, Office of the Metro Attorney. E-mail correspondence, September 8, 2003. LaSota, Jack, attorney for House Bill 2292. Telephone interview September 8, 2003. Rutkowski, Kathy, Metro. Telephone interview September 7, 2003. Smith, Dennis, Maricopa Association of Governments. Telephone and personal interviews during July, August and September 2003. Smith, Elaine, Arizona Department of Revenue. Telephone interview September 22, 2003. Thomas, David, Arizona Legislative Council. Telephone interview September 9, 2003. Town of Marana City of Tucson DeGrood, Jim Elias, Albert Greenhill, Andrew Town of Oro Valley Keene, James, Manager Jansen, Bill Walkup, Bob, Mayor Loomis, Paul, Mayor Pima County Town of Sahuarita Bronson, Sharon, Board of Supervisors Chair Grabowski, Dick, Council member Day, Ann, Supervisor Moreno, Marti, Council member Huckelberry, Chuck, Administrator Stahle, Jim, Manager Pascua Yaqui Tribe City of South Tucson Brody, Kimberly Castro, Fernando, Manager Hofreiter, Larry Tohono O'odham Nation Salaz, Richard Saxe, Greg Smith, Walker Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page 14 Southern Arizona Home Builders Association Jacome, Alex Southern Arizona Leadership Council Myers, Rick Sonoran Institute Bott, Suzanne Tucson Airport Authority Murphy, Jackie APPENDIX A Estimating Revenue Capacity Page 16 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Trans.ortation Authority APPENDIX A ESTIMATING REVENUE CAPACITY A transportation excise tax (TET) may be levied up to 10 percent of the state rate of 5 percent, which equals a one-half cent tax on sales. The tax base would be consistent with that of the state, and thus exclude food for home preparation, and other categories and rates that only municipalities can impose. As noted earlier, the Arizona Department of Revenue estimates that a one-half cent sales tax would generate $55 million per year (based on 2003 collections). Revenues would be sent to the State Treasurer and deposited in PAG's RTF-construction account. The three tables below present estimates of the revenues that would be generated from each PAG member jurisdiction, the population, and the net assessed valuation. Table 4A then combines these statistics. (Nine members sit on the Regional Council; the ninth, representing the Arizona State Transportation Board, is not included in these tables.) Table 1A: TET Revenue Estimates of Member Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Revenue Percentage Marana $3.6 million 6.4% Oro Valley $1.4 million 2.6% Pascua Yaqui 0 0 Pima County Unincorp. $8.5 million 15.5% Sahuarita $ .6 million 1.1% South Tucson $ .5 million .9% Tohono O'odham 0 0 Tucson $40.4 million 73.5% Totals: 8 $55 million 100% Note: Estimates based on unaudited collections for FY 2003 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page 17 Table 2A presents population estimates of member jurisdictions and their percentage of the county total. Table 2A: Population Estimates of Member Jurisdictions (2002) Jurisdiction Population Percentage of Total Marana 17,700 2% Oro Valley 34,050 4% Pascua Yaqui 4,166 .5% Pima County Unincorp. 304,499 34% Sahuarita 5,455 .6% South Tucson 5,520 .6% Tohono O'odham 12,000 1.3% Tucson 507,085 57% Totals: 8 890,545 100% Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security Table 3A reports the net assessed valuation of Pima County and each municipality. Property tax data may be relevant, as local governments can use these revenues for transportation projects. The property tax is not levied on Indian reservations. Table 3A: Net Assessed Values of Member Jurisdictions, Percentages, and Per Capita Values Jurisdiction NAV Percentage Per Capita NAV/% Marana $171,322,369 3.4% $9,679/2% Oro Valley $310,414,311 6.1% $9,111/4% Pima County Uninc. $2,145,326,519 43% $7,045/34% Sahuarita $39,635,810 .08% $7,266/.6% South Tucson $16,783,100 .03% $3,040/.6% Tucson $2,347,648,839 47% $4,630/57% Totals: 6 $5,030,943,008 100% $5,649/100% Source: Arizona Department of Revenue State and County Abstract of the Assessment Roll for 2003 Page 18 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Table 4A: Percentages of Population, Excise Tax Revenues and Assessed Values of Member Jurisdictions Jurisdictions % Population % TET % Property Tax Marana 2% 6.4% 3.4% Oro Valley 4% 2.6% 6.1% Pascua Yaqui .5% 0 0 Pima County Uninc. 34% 15.5% 43% Sa h ua rita .6% 1.1% .08% South Tucson .6% .9% .03% Tohono O'odham 1.3% 0 0 Tucson 57% 73.5% 47% Totals: 8 100% 100% 100% As tables 1A to 4A illustrate, population does not always predict revenue capacity. The city of Tucson contains the most population and hence the greatest capacity for revenue generation. However, capacity far exceeds population for the transportation excise tax (57 percent/74 percent) and falls below in terms of the assessed value (57 percent/47 percent ). The town of Marana, on the other hand, generates more revenue in both local taxes than its population would suggest (2 percent/6.4 and 3.4 percent, respectively). Oro Valley experiences a leakage of sales tax revenues (4 percent/2.6 percent), but generates far more than its population percentage in the county property tax (4 percent/6.1 percent). Pima County's unincorporated population, likewise, generates less in the sales tax (34 percent/15.5 percent), but more in the property tax (34 percent/43 percent). Sahuarita's and South Tucson's capacities are more aligned with their portions of the population. Additionally, as table 3A shows, the per capita assessed value of residents in each jurisdiction, presented just for comparison's sake, varies from a low of $3,040 in South Tucson to a high of $9,679 in Marana. Residents of unincorporated Pima County are "valued" nearly 40 percent higher than those of Tucson— $7,045 to $4,630, respectively. The average assessed value on a per capita basis in Pima County is $5,649. APPENDIX B Governing Other RTAs Page 20 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority APPENDIX B GOVERNING OTHER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES Three general types of regional transportation organizations operate in the United States (Booz Allen Hamilton 2002). They were categorized as the "virtual organization," the "nonprofit corporation" and the "regional authority." A brief description and example of each follows: The Virtual Organization The virtual organization is a collection of transportation providers without legal authority. It is formalized on a voluntary basis through memoranda of agreements, and member providers supply corporate functions. Houston's Transtar is an example of a virtual organization. The Nonprofit Corporation The nonprofit corporation is an adaptation of the virtual. It is a legal entity and can provide its own corporate functions (i.e., be governed by a body of public officials and operate with staff). Vancouver's TRANSCOM is an example of a nonprofit corporation, as are PAG and MAG as councils of government/metropolitan planning organizations in Arizona. The Regional Authority The regional authority is created in statute to provide specific functions. Translink in Seattle and M in the Bay Area are examples of a regional authority, as are Valley Metro and PAG as the RTA. The table below arrays the three types along with their advantages and disadvantages. Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page 21 Table IB: Types of Regional Transportation Organizations Type Advantages Disadvantages Membership is voluntary, undermining regional impact Eas to form Virtual Lacks link to government y processes Enables joint service delivery No direct funding Cannot enforce organizational decisions Easy to form Nonprofit Facilitates joint service delivery Same as above Has governance structure Can enforce organizational decisions Must seek legislative action for Regional Has direct funding more authority Authority Can integrate operations with Lacks full range of transporta- pla n n i ng tion management activities Has regional impact Source: Booz Allen Hamilton 2002 Research suggests that addressing regional transportation problems, however, is difficult regardless of the type of organization utilized. The virtual, nonprofit, and regional authority all share these additional disadvantages: Developing and sustaining participant support Establishing an appropriate scope of operations Securing stable funding at adequate levels Making decisions and managing conflict in a multi-agency context Page 22 Pima Association of Governments as the Re,ional Transportation AuthoritA MODELS OF THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY PAG is a nonprofit corporation and legal entity, governed by a set of by-laws adopted by the Regional Council. If PAG successfully gains taxing authority and begins operating as the RTA, its governance structure must comply with state statute. A brief description of several other regional transportation entities, all in the West, are offered as considerations for future design. All have different designs in structure, function, and finance. Some merge planning with transportation, but most do not. Most also have taxing authority and weighted voting sys- tems, but some do not. METRO (OREGON) Metro has the broadest authority of any RTA in the country. It is not only a COG and MPO, but also an independent district with separately elected officials and a home rule charter. Its scope of activity is also the broadest: urban growth boundaries, solid waste planning, a zoo, parks, landfills, and convention and exposition centers. Metro's jurisdiction includes most of three counties. The governing body comprises a president elected region-wide and six councilors elected from districts on a nonpartisan basis to four-year terms. An auditor is also elected region-wide. The governing body appoints a chief operations officer and an attorney, as well as an Office of Citizen Involvement and a Metro Policy Advisory Committee. It may impose a broad range of taxes, including a property tax, a sales tax and an income tax, all with voter approval. In addition, it can adopt "niche taxes" only with the recommendation of a citizens tax committee (no popular vote required). Expenditures from niche taxes, however, are capped at $15.5 million. Metro currently levies an excise tax on facilities and a regional property tax for the zoo. Los ANGELES COUNTY METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY This authority is a unification of the former Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. Its membership includes the five members of the county board of supervisors, the mayor of Los Angeles, who appoints one other council member and one member of the public, and the mayor or council member of a city in the San Fernando Valley, the Southwest Corridor, San Gabriel Valley, and the Southeast Long Beach sector (chosen by a "county-city selection committee"). The governor also ap- points one non-voting member. Each vote is weighted according to a jurisdiction's percentage of total population of all municipalities within that particular sector. The commission appoints the CEO, general counsel, inspector general, and secretary. The authority cannot levy a tax, but it can issue debt, establish benefit assessment districts and rates, and let contracts. Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority Page 23 BAY AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Several counties encompassing 101 cities comprise the jurisdictional scope of the Commission; San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland are the dominant cities. Sixteen voting members are selected from their own municipal governing bodies and each has one vote. Members appoint the executive director and secretary, and divide functions among policy, counsel, and operations. Operations include buses, subways, the railway, and day care centers at transit stations. The Commission does not have a dedicated source of funding other than transit fares and tolls. (The Association of Bay Area Govern- ments is a separate entity.) REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Governing a region of 1.3 million residents, the Commission has eight members: Clark County and its five municipalities, Nevada Department of Transportation, and the region's MPO. It draws revenues from a variety of sources: 1 percent room tax in the tourist portions of Las Ve- gas, 1 percent motor vehicle privilege tax dedicated to the Beltway, an impact fee of 50 cents per square foot dedicated to the Beltway, a one-quarter cent sales tax for transit, a 3-cent avia- tion jet fuel tax for airports, and a 5-cent to 9-cent gas tax for arterial roads. Voters also ap- proved a one-quarter cent sales tax in 2002. SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In 2002 the California Legislature consolidated the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, and the North San Diego County Transit Development Board into the San Diego Consolidated Transportation Agency. The governing body comprises 20 members, one from each city and the county, and two from the city of San Diego. Each action before the agency board must be approved by two separate votes: a majority of the members present on the basis of one vote per member, and a majority of the weighted vote of the members present, on the basis of population (capped at 40 percent). The governing body also serves as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission. With voter approval, the commission imposed a one-half cent countywide sales tax in 1987 for "the region's highest priority transportation improvements." The Commission will seek voter approval for an extension in 2004. Page 24 Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority PUGET SOUND AND VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA Two other authorities, both located in the Northwest and recently created, are of interest. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority was created in 1999 to serve 21 cities with a combined population of 2.1 million inhabitants. Twelve mayors or GVRD directors serve as the governing body. Revenues come from transit fares, gas taxes, parking and license fees, and road and bridge tolls. The Puget Sound Regional Transportation Improvement District was authorized by statute in 2002 for counties with a population greater than 1.5 million and adjoining counties with a population greater than 500,000. The district must convene a regional transportation investment district planning committee, composed of all member county commissioners. Decisions must be made by a 60 percent weighted majority vote of the total population of members. This committee may recommend to voters a regional sales tax, a local option vehicle license fee, a parking tax, a local motor vehicle excise tax, an employer excise tax, and a vehicle toll. A measure to form a Regional Transportation Improvement District will go before voters in 2004. The state of Washington also increased the state gas tax by 5 cents and added a .3 percent sales tax surcharge on motor vehicles and heavy vehicles. APPENDIX C Presentation to the Regional Council Pima Association of Governments as the Regional Transportation Authority About the Institute for Local Government The University of Arizona is the state's land-grant institution and provides outreach and public service programs. The Institute for Local Government, in the School of Public Administration and Policy, Eller College of Business and Public Administration, conducts national and regional studies and consults nationally and locally on local government issues. Research topics include sales tax impact studies, border impacts of criminal illegal immigrants, county-state relations, county-tribal relations, unfunded mandates, and county and city charters. The Southwest Leadership Program for Local and State Government is the cornerstone of this endeavor. The Institute for Local Government hosts a webpage at www.eller.arizona/spapiilg. If you have questions regarding this publication or other works by the Institute for Local Govern- ment, please contact Alexis Hover, Senior Research Specialist, at (520) 621-2045 or email at ahover@u.arizona.edu. II ICI ' a , I4 • INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLEASE NOTE: In most BUT NOT ALL instances, the page and line numbering of bills on this web site correspond to the page and line numbering of the official printed version of the bills. REFERENCE TITLE: regional transportation authority; excise tax : ► ► ► State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-sixth Legislature Second Regular Session 2004 I HB 2507 ► I Introduced by I I I Representatives Huffman, Burns J, Cajero Bedford, Hershberger, McClure, Senators Bee, : Giffords, Hellon: Representatives Aguirre A, Alvarez, Bradley, Graf, Lopes, Lopez L, : ► Senators Arzberger, Garcia, Soltero V I I AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 42-6106, 48-5302, 48-5303, 48-5304, 48-5308 AND 48-5309, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REPEAL OF SECTION 42-6106, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Section 42-6106, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 42-6106. County transportation excise tax; county population requirements A. In a county with a population exceeding four hundred thousand but fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons, if a majority of APPROVED BY the qualified electors voting at a countywide election, : : ••:': •- : •• ' -: • • the regional transportation authority IN THE COUNTY shall levy AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL COLLECT A TRANSPORTATION EXCISE TAX up to the rate authorized by this section IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER TAXES. sh lcolec ntav B. THE TAX SHALL BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED: 1. At a rate of not more than ten per cent of the transaction privilege tax rate prescribed by section 42-5010, subsection A in effect on January 1, 1990: applying (a)To each person engaging or continuing in the county in a business taxed under chapter 5, article 1 of this title. (b) EXCEPT THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIME CONTRACTING CLASSIFICATION UNDER SECTION 42-5075, THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES OR GROSS INCOME THAT IS DEDUCTIBLE PURSUANT TO SECTION 42-5075, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 8 OR PURSUANT TO SECTION 42-5061, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 27 FOR SALES TO A CONTRACTOR WHO IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 42-5075, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 8 SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE TAX BASE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH. 2. In the case of persons subject to the tax imposed under section 42-5352, subsection A, at a rate of not more than .305 cents per gallon of jet fuel sold. 3. On the use or consumption of electricity or natural gas by retail electric or natural gas customers in the county who are subject to use tax under section 42-5155, at a rate equal to the transaction privilege tax rate under paragraph 1 applying to persons engaging or continuing in the county in the utilities transaction privilege tax classification. B:C. Any subsequent reduction in the transaction privilege tax rate PRESCRIBED BY CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 1 OF THIS TITLE shall not reduce the tax which is approved and collected as prescribed in this section. The department shall collect the tax at a variable rate if the variable rate is specified in the ballot proposition. The department shall collect the tax at a modified rate if approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting. D. AT THE END OF EACH MONTH THE STATE TREASURER SHALL TRANSMIT the net revenues collected under this section TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S FISCAL AGENT FOR DEPOSIT in the regional transportation fund pursuant to section 48-5307. a E. The tax shall be levied under this section beginning January 1 or July 1,whichever date occurs first after approval by the voters, and may be in effect for a period of not more than ten TWENTY years. Sec. 2. Section 48-5302, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48-5302. Regional transportation authority in counties with population of more than four hundred thousand but less than one million two hundred thousand persons; establishment A. A regional transportation authority is established in a county with a population of more than four hundred thousand but less than one million two hundred thousand persons. B. An authority is a public,political, tax levying public improvement and taxing subdivision of this state and a municipal corporation to the extent of the powers and privileges conferred by this chapter or granted generally by the constitution and statutes of this state, including immunity of its property and the interest income and gain on its bonds from taxation. C. The membership of the authority consists of each municipality in the county, anil the county AND ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. The authority may operate in all areas of the county in which it is organized. D. The executive director of the regional council of governments acts as the executive director of the authority and serves in that specific role until replaced at the discretion of the board of the regional council of governments. Sec. 3. Section 48-5303, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48-5303 Board of directors; executive director A. In a county, The government of the authority is vested in a board of directors composed of the members : •- -• •• •• •: - of the regional council of governments with one vote each when determining transportation policy as the regional transportation authority. B. The members of the board shall: 1. Appoint a chairman from among the members at the first official meeting of the board. 2. By rule determine its officers, terms and procedures of appointment. Sec. 4. Section 48-5304, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48-5304. Board duties The board shall: 1. Determine the exclusive public transportation systems to be acquired and constructed, the means to finance the systems and whether to operate the systems or to let contracts for their operation. In the operation of the public transportation system the board may use public transportation facilities used by a municipality, subject to section 48-5308, subsection F. 2. Approve a request for an election to the board of supervisors 1 • • . •r ••• • 1 • • s • s • s• s• • •ss•s • s• s• • -:•;-: • • •! 1 s •• - • •;- ; - for submission of the following issues to the electorate: (a)Approval of a transportation excise tax authorized by section 42-6106. (b)Approval of elements of the ten year regional transportation plan developed pursuant to section 48-5309 •• - • • - • - • • - (c)Approval of changes in the ten-year regional transportation plan pursuant to section 48-5309, subsection B. 3. Produce annually a five year transportation improvement program that is consistent with the regional transportation plan elements : •: : : -•=•= = • qualifiedel tors and that contains the following: (a) Projects financed with monies from the regional transportation fund. (b) A description of each project, including a schedule of expenditures and sources of funding for each project. (c)The political subdivision with responsibility for project implementation. 4. Assure that projects proposed for federal, state or local funding appear in the regional trarispeftatien authority's transportation improvement program and in the transportation improvement program of the regional council of governments. 5. Not later than January 1 of each year for publication in at least two newspapers of the county in January, assess and analyze the status and implications of the transportation improvement program with respect to the occurrence of substantial change as defined in section 48-5309 and with respect to the potential for or occurrence of the following conditions: (a)An actual project expenditure that exceeds the project budget amount shown in the first year of the transportation improvement program by five per cent or more. (b) A project cost amount that exceeds by ten per cent or more the project budget amount that appears in the first year of the transportation improvement program. (c) First year and five year cumulative projected expenditures for all elements of the ten year regional transportation plan in the five year transportation improvement program that exceed revenue estimates for corresponding periods by twenty per cent or more. 6. ' _ : :_ _ : ;-..- ; .; ; - -- DEVELOP SUPPLEMENTS to the regional transportation plan :- • - :•: :. .: - = - •: - 4 : '' • -: • ;; = -: • - i . encompasses that encompass a period of . - : . : •: . • -• - . : :- TIME THAT IS coterminous with the effective period of a transportation excise tax approved pursuant to section 42-6106. ' : • •:- : : - - :;--- . -- A supplement shall b not BE DEVELOPED earlier than the fourth year and not later than the second year before the expiration of the year regional transportation plan. 7. Adopt an annual budget,hire employees and fix the compensation of its employees. 8. Cause a postaudit of the financial transactions and records of the board AUTHORITY to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant. 9. Adopt rules that are proper or necessary to regulate the use, operation and maintenance of its property and facilities, including its public transportation systems and related transportation facilities and services operating in its area of jurisdiction, and to carry into effect the powers granted to the board. 10. Appoint advisory committees as it deems necessary. 11. Have sole authority to implement the elements of the regional transportation plan . -: : --:•: • : - : - • : •-., including authority to contract for, absorb or acquire existing public transportation services as it deems necessary. 12. Coordinate the implementation of the regional transportation plan among the local jurisdictions. 13. Contract for financial, administrative, underwriting and trust services necessary to issue bonds pursuant to sections 48-5341 through 48-5347 and administer the regional transportation fund pursuant to section 48-5307, subsection B. 14. Hire legal counsel to represent the authority in any legal proceeding, accountants and other professional personnel as it deems necessary. 15. Set the priorities of the plan and administer and facilitate the distribution of monies in the regional transportation fund. 16. Delegate to the general manager any of the administrative functions,powers or duties that the board believes the general manager can competently, efficiently and properly perform. 17. Contract and enter into stipulations of any nature necessary and convenient for the full exercise of the powers granted in this chapter. 18. Do all things necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Sec. 5. Section 48-5308, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48-5308. Distribution from regional transportation fund A. All monies in the bond account of the regional transportation fund shall be held in trust for the owners of the bonds. Monies in the bond account: 1. Shall be paid out to paying agents or directly to the owners of the bonds pursuant to the resolution or resolutions of the board authorizing the issuance of the bonds. 2. May be used to pay bond related expenses or recurring expenses pertaining to administration and payment of the bonds. B. Monies in the bond proceeds account of the regional transportation fund may be obligated or spent as directed by the board for the purposes provided by subsection C of this section. C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, monies in the construction account of the regional transportation fund shall be spent,pledged or accumulated for the design, right-of-way purchase, construction, operation, maintenance and contiguous open space preservation purchase compatible with local environmental ordinance OF, AND within the expenditure limits for, each element of the regional transportation plan, of D. Notwithstanding any other law, from the monies deposited in the construction account of the regional transportation fund in each fiscal year, the board shall distribute: 1. To each municipality, excluding the municipality that has the largest population in the county, the greater amount of one per cent of the revenues collected from the transportation excise tax authorized pursuant to section 42-6106 or three hundred thousand dollars, to be used for purposes consistent with subsection C of this section. 2. An amount of not more than three hundred thousand dollars to the regional council of governments to hire professional planning,technical and administrative staff required to accomplish plan development for the authority pursuant to section 48-5309 and to perform the responsibilities as the authority may require. E. The three hundred thousand dollar distributions prescribed by subsection D of this section are subject to: 1. Proration for any fiscal year in which a transportation excise tax authorized pursuant to section 42-6106 is collected for less than a full fiscal year. 2. Adjustment by the annual percentage change for the previous calendar year in the GDP price deflator, as defined in section 41-563, for each fiscal year after the first full fiscal year in which the transportation excise tax is collected. F. After the first June 30 BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR following voter approval of the REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION plan . : : ':- 6 ,monies appropriated for each of the following purposes, if approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting at a special or general election,by each municipality or the county of IN the authority shall not be less than the total amount of general monies spent for those purposes in that municipality or county for fiscal year 1989 1990 2003- 2004 adjusted by the annual percentage change for the previous calendar year in the GDP price deflator as defined in section 41-563: 1. Roadway improvements, including controlled access highways,parkways and controlled access arterials, arterial upgrades and related grade separations. 2. Transit improvements for buses, including expansion of the bus fleet and its associated maintenance facility, expansion of express routes and associated connecting terminals, ridesharing, van pool fleet acquisition, including special projects for the handicapped and elderly, and park and ride lots. 3. An express and light rail system. 4. Bicycle projects, including striped lanes on arterials, neighborhood bike routes and planning of bikeways focused on major regional activity center destinations. 5. Pedestrian projects on arterial and collector streets, neighborhood walkways and walkways focused on major regional activity center destinations. Sec. 6. Section 48-5309, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48-5309. Regional transportation plan; definition A. The authority shall develop a ten TWENTY year regional transportation plan for implementation that is SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE AUTHORITY AND financed by a transportation excise tax approved pursuant to section 42-6106 and bonds issued pursuant to - ' - : - :•!• ' : ARTICLE 2 OF THIS CHAPTER. The regional transportation plan: 1. Shall include a public transportation component. 2. May, among other things: (a) Define and identify regional transportation corridors. (b) Define the transportation problems, goals and needs for each corridor. (c) Determine environmental, economic, energy and social policies to guide transportation investment decisions. (d) Determine the impact of the plan on air quality, with one of the goals of the plan being the improvement of air quality. (e) Order the priority of regional transportation corridors for development. (f)Determine the mix of alternative transportation modes appropriate for development in lilt-of CONSISTENT WITH the transportation goals and needs for each corridor. The mix may include sidewalks,rail service, buses, vans, para-transit,park and ride lots, bicycle facilities and any other facility or service reasonably related to transportation. (g) Select appropriate public transportation technology. (h)Determine the capacity for exclusive public transportation technologies. (i) Determine operating performance criteria and costs for public transportation systems. (j) Locate routes and access points to the public transportation systems. (k)Determine the ridership of public transportation systems. (1) Determine the need for landscape buffers, noise barriers,pedestrian bypasses, multi- use MULTIUSE paths and other environmental impact mitigation measures relating to the regional transportation plan. B. A ten year THE regional transportation plan -. ::: : • •: : . - ": -- agency may not be amended to add or delete an element or substantially change an element without prior approval of the electorate at a general or special election. Voter • • - - - • • ••• • •• • • •- . •a - • • pursuant to subsection F-E of this section. The prior approval of the electorate required by THIS subsection B of thi s sortie is waived if a political subdivision causing changes within its jurisdiction to the tenar regional transportation plan incurs the incremental costs of implementing the proposed changes. C. Within the time intervals specified by this subsection from the date of approval of a transportation excise tax as provided in section 42-6106, the regional transportation authority shall not distribute from the aggregate of transportation excise tax monies received at any time by the regional transportation fund an amount of monies that exceeds the percentage share of the transportation excise tax approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting for a transportation element of the ten-year regional transportation plan by a relative percentage in excess of the percentage specified for the following time intervals: 1. Three years or less, fifteen per cent. 2. More than three years but not more than five years, ten per cent. 3. More than five years but not more than seven years, five per cent. 4. More than seven years but not more than nine years, two per cent. 5. More than nine years but not more than ten years, zero per cent. E. D. The proposition for a revised ten year regional transportation plan considered at an election held pursuant to subsection F-E of this section shall adhere to the format applicable to the ballot proposition approved by the qualified electors voting on the initial regional transportation plan. • A i • • i ••i • i a• i i 1 i• •• • a- w r - i a i •• - i r i SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OCCURS, the board of DIRECTORS shall request the county board of supervisors to provide a ballot proposition for consideration of a revised regional transportation plan on or before the date of the next general election. If the board of supervisors fails to provide the proposition at the next general election or if a majority of the qualified electors voting at the election ON THE ISSUE does not approve a revised ten year regional transportation plan, expenditures authorized pursuant to section 48-5308, subsection C, except those obligated as of the date of the general election, are prohibited. G: F. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, "substantial change" means a change that, based on data in the transportation improvement program developed pursuant to section 48-5304, paragraph 3, results in one or more of the following conditions: 1. A present worth of estimated expenditures required to complete all elements of the ten year regional transportation plan that exceeds the present worth of estimated revenues available to the regional transportation fund during the comparable period by ten per cent or more, except that estimated revenues from bond proceeds, if any, shall not exceed the bond capacity, less associated expenses, supported by estimates of unencumbered revenues for the initial ten years of authorization for the transportation excise tax. The preceding five year average of the GDP price deflator as defined in section 41-563 shall be used to discount the respective series of estimated revenues and expenditures to a present worth. 2. An estimated cost to complete one or more elements of the regional transportation plan : :: : • -. : • -- = = -- _ •= • -= - = • : ••: that exceeds the expenditure limitations of the -. :r: -• : • •: - plan as adjusted by the GDP price deflator as defined in section 41-563 by the following or greater percentages: (a)Ten per cent for a single element of the plan. (b) Fifteen per cent for any two elements of the plan. (c)Twenty per cent for three or more elements of the plan. Sec. 7. Regional transportation plan; election on transportation excise tax A. Pursuant to title 48, chapter 30, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, the board of directors of the regional transportation authority in a county with a population exceeding four hundred thousand but less than one million two hundred thousand persons shall: 1. Adopt a twenty year comprehensive multimodal regional transportation plan in the county, including transportation corridors by priority and a schedule indicating the dates that construction will begin for projects contained in the plan. 2. Request by resolution certified to the county board of supervisors that the issue of levying a transportation excise tax pursuant to section 42-6106, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act,be submitted to the qualified electors at a countywide special election or placed on the ballot at a countywide general election. Within six months after receiving a certified copy of the resolution, the board of supervisors shall either call a special election or place the issue on the ballot of a general election, subject to the requirements of this section. B. The election ballot shall include a description of each transportation element of the regional transportation plan including a separate percentage share and dollar share of the transportation excise tax revenues allocated to each element. C. In addition to any other requirements prescribed by law, the board of supervisors shall prepare and print a publicity pamphlet concerning the ballot question and mail one copy of the pamphlet to each household containing a registered voter in the county. The mailings may be made over a period of days but shall be mailed for delivery before the earliest date registered voters may receive early ballots for the election. The publicity pamphlet shall contain: 1. The date of the election. 2. The individual household's polling place and the time the polls will be open. 3. A summary of the principal provisions of the issue presented to the voters, including the rate of the transportation excise tax, the number of years the tax will be in effect and the projected annual and cumulative amount of revenues to be raised. 4. A statement describing the purposes for which the transportation excise tax monies may be spent as provided by law, including: (a) A summary of the regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to section 48-5309, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, and subsection A of this section, including a description of each transportation element of the regional transportation plan. (b) A map of proposed routes and transportation corridors of all major transportation projects and public transportation systems. (c)The percentage share and dollar amount of transportation excise tax revenues, together with other identified revenues, dedicated for each transportation element, transportation project and public transportation system, and conditions and limitations on the use of the money. 5. The form of the ballot. 6. Any arguments for or against the ballot measure. Affirmative arguments, arranged in the order in which the elections director received them, shall be placed before the negative arguments, also arranged in the order in which they were received. D. Not later than ninety days before the date of the election, a person may file with the county elections director an argument, not more than three hundred words in length, advocating or opposing the ballot measure, subject to the following requirements: 1. The person who files the argument shall also pay to the elections director a publication fee prescribed by the board of supervisors. Payment of the fee required by this subsection, or reimbursement of the payor, constitutes sponsorship of the argument. 2. If the argument is sponsored by one or more individuals, the argument shall be signed by each sponsoring individual. 3. If the argument is sponsored by one or more organizations, the argument shall be signed by two executive officers of each organization. 4. If the argument is sponsored by one or more political committees, the argument shall be signed by each committee's chairperson or treasurer. 5. The names of persons who have signed arguments and the names of sponsoring organizations shall appear with the argument in the pamphlet. The person or persons signing the argument shall also give their residence or post office address and a telephone number, which shall not appear in the pamphlet. E. In addition to any other ballot requirements prescribed by law, the elections director shall cause the following to be printed on the official ballot: 1. The designation of the measure as follows: "Relating to county transportation excise (sales) taxes". 2. Instructions directing the voter to the full text of the official and descriptive titles containing the summary as printed in the sample ballot and posted in the polling place. The ballot may include the summary of the regional transportation plan. 3. The question submitted to the voters as follows: Do you favor the levy of a transaction privilege (sales) tax for regional transportation purposes in county? YES NO (A "YES" vote has the effect of imposing a transaction privilege (sales) tax in county for years to provide funding for transportation projects as contained in the regional transportation plan.) (A "NO" vote has the effect of rejecting the transaction privilege (sales)tax for transportation purposes in county.) F. Except as otherwise provided by this section, the election under this section shall be conducted as nearly as practicable in the manner prescribed for general elections in title 16, Arizona Revised Statutes. G. The county election officer shall account for costs specifically incurred with respect to the ballot issue under this section. Regardless of the outcome of the election, and notwithstanding any other law, the state treasurer shall pay the costs listed in this subsection specifically incurred with respect to the ballot issue under this section from the cities' share of local transportation assistance fund monies distributed under section 28-8102, Arizona Revised Statutes, and from the county's share of the county assistance fund under section 41-175, Arizona Revised Statutes. If the transportation excise tax is approved, the regional transportation authority shall reimburse the local transportation assistance fund and the county assistance fund from the first received transportation excise tax revenues. The following costs incurred by the county elections officer are authorized for payment pursuant to this subsection: 1. Costs of mailing,publishing,posting and printing ballots,publicity pamphlets, notices, election materials and other matters concerning the election. 2. Legal and other consulting fees and costs relating to the election. 3. Telecommunications costs. 4. Compensation of the election board, county election officers and employees and other labor costs incurred to administer,hold, canvass and announce the results of the election. 5. Any other costs attributable to the election. H. This section does not constitute a submission of any provision of law to the people for approval under the power of the referendum. Sec. 8. Intent regarding expenditure limitations Monies collected pursuant to a county transportation excise tax pursuant to section 42- 6106, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, that are spent according to the purposes described in article IX, section 20, subsection(3), paragraph (d), subdivisions (i) and (viii), Constitution of Arizona, are exempt from the jurisdiction's expenditure limitation. Sec. 9. Repeal; conditional repeal A. Section 7 of this act, relating to elections on the transportation excise tax, is repealed from and after December 31, 2006. B. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on the issue in an election held pursuant to section 7 of this act rejects the levy of the proposed transportation excise tax, section 42- 6106, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed. The enactment or repeal of any provision of this act conditioned on the results of the election does not constitute a submission of those provisions to the voters under the power of the referendum.