Southbound traffic speeds by a seam with fresh crack seal on La Cholla just north of Orange Grove.
Arguing that every option to increase funds for road repair and preservation has been exhausted, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry is asking the board of supervisors to consider a 25-cent property tax increase to fund repairs to local streets in all jurisdictions, not just unincorporated areas.
The tax would be partially offset by a cumulative 11-cent decrease in several other county-controlled property taxes, leaving taxpayers with a 14-cent increase next fiscal year for every $100 of valuation, according to a recently released memo to the board. Twenty-five cents is the maximum rate allowed by state law for road work, and it would bring in an estimated $19.5 million in its first year.
Huckelberry is recommending the tax last five years, over the course of which it would raise around $100 million. Unlike a county half-cent sales tax, which would require a unanimous board vote, the property tax can be levied with a simple majority vote when the board adopts the final budget June 21.
Road work could begin immediately if it does so, according to the memo. The first public meeting on the proposal will be Tuesday, May 23, when the supervisors will adopt a tentative budget.
For a homeowner with a residence valued at $164,000 — the average for the area — their annual property tax burden would increase by about $23 if the supervisors approve the plan, according to county calculations.
Huckelberry wrote he is “confident” the fiscal year 2019 budget will be able “to fully absorb the 25-cent road tax increase” due to anticipated increases in the tax base, meaning the proposed first year’s 14-cent increase could then be eliminated. Huckelberry had hoped to make the proposal “tax neutral” this year, but said overtime overages and retirement costs at the Sheriff’s Department made that difficult.
The county had been pushing for a number of road funding measures at the Legislature, including a statewide voter-approved gas tax hike or the authorization to seek its local gas tax, but most have failed.
“We have tried everything we can to try and fix it externally,” Supervisor Ramón Valadez, who is hopeful the plan will be approved, said. “This is our attempt to use the only tool we have left to address it ourselves.”
“The cavalry isn’t coming,” Supervisor Richard Elías said.
If approved, revenues from the tax would have a number of rules regarding their expenditure.
For one, they could be spent only on so-called local streets, which are lower traffic residential roads. They are also in much worse condition — 65 percent in unincorporated Pima County are in poor or failed condition, according to recent county figures — than higher traffic arterial streets. The money could also only be spent on pavement preservation, repair and resurfacing, not on overhead costs, design or construction costs like sidewalks.
Each supervisor would directly oversee how the funds in their district are spent, possibly through advisory committees or in consultation with governing bodies of the different jurisdictions within their district. Priorities for collector and arterial road repair, funding for which is expected to increase dramatically as debt service on the 1997 HURF bonds starts to drop, would remain the responsibility of the county transportation department.
Supervisor Ally Miller had previously advocated for that sort of control and oversight, but she and other supervisors said they have yet to decide how exactly they would exercise that power.
“I think it’s very important that the supervisors have the authority to make the determination in where these monies go,” she said, adding that whatever process she chooses would be “transparent.”
Supervisor Sharon Bronson had some concerns about the prospect of supervisor control, and said that however it’s handled, “need,” not “political motivations,” should guide project prioritization.
The plan also calls for sharing the revenues “equitably” between unincorporated Pima County, where the county is responsible for road maintenance and repair, and cities and towns.
Under the proposal, $8.2 million would go to projects in unincorporated areas, $8 million would be spent in Tucson city limits, $1.2 million would go to Marana, and $1.5 million would be spent in Oro Valley. Smaller amounts would go to projects in Sahuarita and South Tucson. Though the work will take place in other jurisdictions, the county “will administer the program,” according to the memo.
Elías said that feature makes the plan fair for District 5, much of which is within Tucson city limits.
The $8.2 million for unincorporated areas would be divided up based on the proportion of county-maintained local roads in each district. As a result, Miller’s District 1, which has roughly 36 percent of such roads, would see the largest share — nearly $3 million. Local road projects in Districts 3 and 4 would see roughly $2 million a piece, and districts 2 and 5 would see less than $1 million.
For incorporated and unincorporated areas combined, Miller would also oversee the largest portion of the $19.5 million — just shy of $5 million. The other four supervisors would oversee pots of between $3.2 million and $4.1 million.
Because of state expenditure limits, the work will actually be paid for with certificates of participation, municipal debt that doesn’t require voter approval, as general obligation bonds do. Huckelberry told the Star that debt service costs would be minimal. He estimated that for the estimated $100 million of revenue, interest payments would be around $1.5 million to $2 million.
Miller said she “reluctantly” supports the plan because road conditions have reached a “crisis” point, and expects it to be approved. Supervisor Steve Christy echoed that qualified support.
While Huckelberry’s late April recommended budget did not mention the prospect of a road property tax, there was a reference to “a number of potential proposals” to bring in “approximately $8 million” for road work in unincorporated areas. The full details of the proposal were publicly released Wednesday morning, the day after Tucson voters approved a half-cent sales tax increase by a wide margin.
Asked if the sales tax might not have fared as well if the property tax had been proposed earlier, Miller said she didn’t know but that “we can always second-guess that one.”
What she was sure of was that “people aren’t going to be real happy” about the property tax piling on top of the sales tax, as well as other recent increases in utility bills.
“It just seems like every time we start to get the economy going a little, boom, we start taxing people more and take their disposable incomes,” she said.
But Bronson, who congratulated Tucson on the vote, said inaction at the state and federal level has left local government with few options to address crumbling roads.
“It just seems like every time we start to get the economy going a little, boom, we start taxing people more and take their disposable incomes.” Supervisor Ally Miller, who “reluctantly” supports the 25-cent property tax hike because road conditions have reached a “crisis” point.
