The Regional Transportation Authority has been responsible for hundreds of roadwork projects β ranging from new sidewalks to road expansions β since Pima County voters authorized an RTA sales tax for a two-decade term in 2006.
The program has pumped more than $1.4 billion into the region and is one of the most important sources of transportation funding for communities throughout the county. Now the goal is to keep it alive through a new iteration of the program called RTA Next, which could be on the ballot as early as 2024.
But that plan could live or die depending on what happens Thursday, when officials will have to find a solution to a conflict that could cause the city of Tucson to exit the program β and bring nearly half of the countyβs voters with it.
βI think that would be very, very problematic and probably lead to the failure of the RTA at the ballot box,β said Gen. Ted Maxwell, one of nine members of the RTAβs governance board who represents the Arizona Department of Transportation. βIβll tell you the impact of the RTA not being around is much greater than anybody really realizes or imagined.β
The conflict began last year as city officials faced a massive funding shortfall for Tucsonβs current RTA projects, began raising issues about what they called an βinequitableβ RTA governing structure and demanded changes to the committee tasked with designing RTA Next.
Tucsonβs City Council vowed to withdraw unless RTA leaders take five votes βat the very leastβ to address the concerns at Thursdayβs meeting, though only two such votes have taken place since September.
βThey need to make some votes and make some commitments,β Councilman Steve Kozachik said. βWeβve got conversations started, but theyβre just conversations, and I think they need to make some actual, real, tangible progress.β
Local officials agree they are unlikely to reach a βtangibleβ solution in time and are banking on the city to push its deadline back before big changes are made.
A delay is not an option for Tucson. The city has its own upcoming road work initiative, Proposition 101, that will have to be adjusted depending on what happens with the RTA, and it needs to be submitted to election officials by Feb. 1.
Compromise at the RTA also seems unlikely as the city has refused to give any ground, and other members remain opposed to Tucsonβs demands, with some like Marana Mayor Ed Honea even suggesting they would leave the RTA if certain changes are made.
βI just donβt think weβre going to crash to the cityβs pressure,β said Honea. βWeβre standing out in the middle of Broadway, and the cityβs driving a Tucson bus down the middle of the road and telling us if we donβt do what they want, theyβre going to run over us. Right now weβre kind of saying, βwell fine.ββ
The end of the RTA could spell trouble for the entire region. It would put decades of Tucson road work at risk, stunt the expansion of Arizonaβs transportation network and deprive communities of much needed infrastructure they couldnβt afford without outside help.
Weighted voting a long shot
One of the most contentious issues involves tweaking the governing boardβs voting structure. Itβs a sticking point for Tucson, a no-go for many other members and may be tricky to change even if the board can come to a consensus.
The RTA Board is made up of representatives from eight communities: Tucson, Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, South Tucson, Pima County, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the Tohono Oβodham Nation. Maxwell from ADOT is the ninth voting member.
Each jurisdiction has one vote despite representing vastly different sized populations, which range from about 6,000 residents to nearly 600,000. The city says the system disenfranchises Tucsonans who have only 11% of the vote despite representing 52% of the regionβs population.
Changing that voting structure is not as easy as just getting the board members to agree to a new model, however. Arizona law requires each member to have one vote, so changes at the state-level would have to be made β something officials agree could lead to bad things for the RTA.
βThey might go back and look at other rights that have been granted to the RTA, like the ability to go to the voters with additional revenue beyond the existing half-cent,β said Supervisor Rex Scott, who represents Pima County on the RTA board. βThat was controversial when the Legislature approved (the RTA) the first time and we just donβt want to reopen that.β
Romero proposed using a separate state law to get around the restrictions by first adding members to the Pima Association of Governments, a regional organization related to the RTA.
State law requires the RTA Boardβs membership to mirror that of PAGβs governing body, called the Regional Council. In theory, a change to PAGβs council would automatically be applied to the RTA.
But that adjustment would still need to be approved by the governorβs office, and local officials who oppose the voting changes have said they would actively prevent the approval from happening.
βIn order for us to go to any kind of weighted voting at PAG, we have to go to the governor and get it approved,β said Mayor Honea, one of the staunchest opponents of the voting system change. βThe governorβs a friend of mine, and Iβm going to be up there screaming, so I donβt know if he would do it.β
Other board members rejected Romeroβs proposal because it gave Tucson 40% of the total votes, or eight times the voting power of each of the seven smaller jurisdictions.
Sahuarita Mayor Tom Murphy said if the plan were implemented there would be βalmost no reason for a lot of us to even show up.β Rex Scott also said he wouldnβt support it even though he would gain votes under Romeroβs plan.
βThat proposal is never going to be acceptable to everybody on the council, and Iβm fairly certain that a political leader with the experience and savvy of Mayor Romero knows that,β Scott said. βThe proposal that she presented at the last meeting was not a compromise proposal.β
Scott proposed another plan that would give each PAG member a certain number of votes based on population rather than adding members, something he said doesnβt need outside approval.
The voting power is more balanced in his proposal, but it only applies to PAG and wonβt change the RTAβs voting system. The city could still gain some extra influence through certain PAG decisions that can impact grant funding at the RTA, for example.
Other jurisdictions would still have to agree, which will require them to sacrifice their own voting power.
Honea and Murphy arenβt on board with the change. Oro Valley Mayor Joe Winfield said he hasnβt taken a position yet, but heβs often pushed back against the proposals during board meetings.
All three said the change could pave the way for smaller towns to be disenfranchised in RTA Next and that they donβt understand why itβs necessary given that more than 95% of RTA Board and PAG votes have been unanimous since 2006.
βI just donβt see how a different voting structure would put us in a different place than where we are,β Winfield said. βIf thereβs a funding shortfall, voting doesnβt address that. It doesnβt address that concern. It doesnβt change that.β
RTA staff are expected to present new voting system options at Thursdayβs meeting. Farhad Moghimi, the programβs executive director, said that there wonβt be any βmagicβ solutions.
Funding gaps
Tucsonβs issues with the RTA largely stem from a funding gap that the city estimates could be as high as $250 million.
City officials mainly blame the gap on inflation that made original 2006 ballot amounts far lower than whatβs actually needed to complete the projects. They need to receive an βassuranceβ that the remaining projects will be fully-funded at Thursdayβs meeting to remain in the RTA.
βIf we donβt get answers on how we get (the projects) funded, that is cheating the taxpayers of the city of Tucson,β Mayor Romero said. βWe need to find answers, and the meeting on Jan. 27 will be pivotal in how the city of Tucson moves forward.β
The city is unlikely to get that guarantee this week. The RTAβs Technical Management Committee, which reviews things like project costs, did not even discuss inflation adjustments at its recent meeting.
RTA officials also contend they have done their part by funding Tucsonβs projects at the 2006 ballot amount and that any extra costs are the cityβs responsibility.
There was an opportunity to shrink the funding gap by millions ahead of Thursdayβs meeting by approving a project adjustment that Tucson requested, but documents show the RTA may have failed to capitalize on it.
The adjustment was proposed for North First Avenue, one of the cityβs most dangerous roads. It would have eliminated the projectβs $28 million funding gap and ensured there was enough money to make safety improvements.
RTA staffers were assigned to review the suggestion but were not provided a βframework for review nor process for making recommendationsβ to guide their conversation. They ultimately did not reach a decision.
Board members have suggested rolling Tucsonβs remaining projects into RTA Next. If the program begins in 2024 β two years earlier than planned β it would open up new funding options and could allow the projects to be completed on time.
βTucson would be the biggest winner of an accelerated RTA Next because I believe any one of us would agree that the highest priority is completing those last projects that were at the back end,β said Mayor Murphy. βThe city would benefit the most.β
But Tucson canβt take a wait-and-see approach because it has its own deadline. Prop. 101, the cityβs own transportation initiative, has collected a separate half-cent sales tax since 2017 and is set to expire later this year unless itβs renewed by voters.
If the city leaves the RTA, it needs to recover those funds through Prop. 101 by raising its sales tax to a full cent. City officials need to figure that out by Feb. 1 if they hope to get the initiative on the ballot in time for Mayβs election.
βWe have to decide what weβre taking back to the voters in May. We will send a very clear message to the RTA if we ask for a half cent or if we ask for a full cent,β Kozachik said. βIf itβs a full cent, the message back to the RTA is we got tired of waiting β weβre on our own.β
Area of compromise
The Citizens Advisory Committee could be an area for compromise at Thursdayβs meeting, according to multiple board members.
The group is composed of 35 individuals from the region who are tasked with developing the RTA Next plan. They decide everything from what projects are included in RTA Next to the construction schedule.
Tucson already scored some victories during committee discussions last fall when the board unanimously passed new membership guidelines that gave the city 19 committee members, five more than they had in 2006.
The board also approved Romeroβs motion to consider demographic and βinterestβ diversity in the committee. The Tucson mayor proposed the motion, in part, to ensure the approved projects include some of the cityβs specific needs like transit upgrades.
βI really think that those agreements that we reached on the structure and direction to be given to the CAC indicates that everybody on the RTA Board wants to move forward together,β Scott said. βIt seems to me that the best foundation for further dialogue and compromise moving forward is with the CAC. Thatβs the future of the RTA.β
RTA staff has since selected potential committee candidates, and the board is expected to confirm the new members on Thursday. Board members said they are open to further compromise as the committee puts RTA Next together.