The June 19th board of supervisors meeting was a lengthy one, lasting more than five hours and spanning scores of different and differing agenda items, hearings, and resolutions. As just fixing our roads is and always has been my primary focus and priority, I’ll spare you the details regarding all the other matters the board of supervisors dealt with and keep my report to you trained on road repair-related issues.
First, the resolution proposing a countywide half-cent sales tax for road repair failed, as predicted, due to the required unanimous 5-0 vote by the board of supervisors. As I have stated in previous articles, I could not – and did not – vote for this sales tax measure because it was attached to a previously-passed ordinance that mandated more than $3 million be withdrawn annually from the county general fund.
These funds would have been funneled through a “Commission for Economic Diversity and Prosperity,” which would then divvy up this money among area social service and non-profit agencies. This “Commission” would have control over some $50 – $60 million during the life of the road repair plan, with none of it going toward fixing our roads. This resolution could not operate without the ordinance and vice-versa, so, accordingly, I voted against both.
During the annual budget votes, the board repealed, by a unanimous 5-0 vote, the 25-cent property tax for road repairs enacted last year. This property tax increase (which I also voted against) proved to be vastly inadequate in raising the revenues needed to address our $800 million – $1 billion road repair crisis. The board of supervisors further reduced property taxes in what some are calling “the largest in recent county history,” the net amount being overall 6.2% (see below).
County total combined tax rate (per $100 of assessed value)
Tax Type FY 2018 Rate FY 2019 Rate Change % Change
Primary $4.4596* $4.0696 -$0.39 -8.7%
Flood Control $0.3135 $0.3335 +$0.02 6.4%
Library $0.5053 $0.5153 +$0.01 2%
Debt $0.70 $0.69 -$0.01 -1.4%
Total $5.9784 $5.6084 -$0.37 -6.2%
*includes 25-cent road repair rate
Obviously, reducing our property taxes is very good news and a positive development. But where do we go from here toward fixing our roads? At the same meeting, the board was provided with information about the possibilities of funding a regional road repair plan through the authorization and issuance of general obligation bonds.
Two options were submitted for board consideration:
Option A is a ten-year plan that would make completely repair our roads funded through $860 million in bonds or option B, a five-year plan that would make “substantial progress” towards repairing our roads that would be funded through $430 million in bonds. The repayments would average only 3.4 years with option B, and average 8.9 years with option A.
In both options, the very short repayment period would not cause an increase in the debt-service tax rate. With the newest reductions in property taxes, by authorizing the bonds for road repair, property taxes would remain constant and not rise. However, we would be paying this tax rate longer.
And the best element about this proposal is that you – the voters of Pima County – will decide if we should or should not go ahead with this plan – not the legislature, not the governor and not the board of supervisors.
The board directed staff to prepare information for our consideration at the July 3 meeting about whether to ask voters in November to approve a $430 million general obligation bond dedicated to road repair.
I prefer option B, the five-year $430 million bond plan. We can better gauge our road repair progress within five years as well as see if other alternate funding sources may reveal themselves. And, if another, better road repair plan does reveal itself, at any time within those five years; we can rescind the bonded plan and go with the new plan.
Now this $430 million general obligation bond plan dedicated to road repair does not come without its potential hazards. First, and foremost, we must receive sealed-tight safeguards and guaranteed assurances that all bond monies will go only for road repairs and that there can be no diversions of any bond monies elsewhere. Second, we must be conveyed those same types of assurances that the county is capable of properly administering such a road repair plan. The overarching theme I’m expressing that the county must address the widespread opinion and feeling of residents who hold little faith and trust in Pima County. Third, what role of oversight and general involvement will the Regional Transportation Authority have throughout this plan? Fourth, unfortunately, this plan is funded solely on the backs of Pima County property owners. Many others use and enjoy our roads, yet do not own property here and get a “free ride.”
In the coming months, there will be much information on this bonded road repair plan – both for and against the plan – disseminated to all voters. Again, you the voters will decide and that’s as it should be. I urge you to take the time and make the serious effort to educate yourself about his bond-funded road repair plan. Bear in mind that as each day passes without a comprehensive regional road repair plan in place, our roads continue to deteriorate and cost more to rehabilitate. Your vote holds the future.
