Pima County administrator wants to increase gas tax, and develop 80 more soccer fields
The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted last week to adopt the FY2015 budget with a 3-2 vote. The supervisors approved the proposed 63-cent increase in the combined property tax rates.
Residents and business representatives came before the Board and pleaded for fiscal restraint. They urged the Board to reject the proposal which would raise the proposed combined tax 91 cents higher than only two years ago.
Prior to the meeting residents and business interests contacted County officials expressing their concerns about the “staggering” increase. Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association wrote to the entire Board, “As property taxpayers are painfully aware, Pima County has for decades been at or near the top in highest county property tax rates. For many years, Pima County has solidly occupied the unfavorable position of the highest county property tax rates, with the FY 2014 combined tax rate a full dollar higher than second place finisher Pinal County.”
“In addition to being the highest overall rate in the state, Pima County’s FY 2014 rate was $2.71 higher than the average rate for all Arizona Counties. Most notably, despite being Arizona’s second most populous county, Pima unbelievably still holds the distinction of the highest property levies per capita at $386 for FY 2014,” wrote McCarthy. “By comparison, the most populous Maricopa County levied $118 per capita and the third largest Pinal County levied $208 per capita.”
McCarthy noted that “Arizona’s largest tax barrier to recruiting new employers is our high business property taxes. For 2013, Arizona ranked 9th nationally in industrial property taxes. Clearly, in the highly competitive marketplace for business retention and recruitment, Pima is already at a significant disadvantage both nationally and regionally.”
That disadvantage, has contributed in part, to the fact that Pima County is now home to the 8th poorest metropolitan area in the country.
McCarthy concluded by asking the supervisors to the needs of the government “against not only the impact on Pima County taxpayers and businesses but also against the long-term viability of economic development in Pima County.
In response to a letter dated June 13, 2014 from TEP executive Lawrence Lucero, (Read letter here) Huckelberry writes, “The approved property tax rate increase is 12.2 percent, not 16.7 percent, as stated in your letter.” However, contradicting Mr. Huckleberry according to County staff, Mr. Lucero’s claim is accurate.
According to Huckelberry, “a homeowner of an average primary residence valued at $146,426 will pay $96.01 more in county-specific taxes next fiscal year. The actual amount paid depends on the home’s net assessed value.” For the residents in homes of lower value, any increase is too much. Huckelberry, who relies on the concept of equity to rationalize the County’s spending on parks and bike paths, ignores the pleas of those less fortunate. At the supervisors meeting on June 17, 2014, one elderly couple stood side-by-side at the speakers’ dais and told the supervisors, “You are taxing us out of our home.”
For those who know that Pima County assessed values are very political; for the friends of the powers-that-be values fluctuate depending on the property owners’ value to the County and not necessarily market forces.
Yet, Huckelberry continues to push his false claim of fairness and his concept of equity for some and not others, which of course makes the equitable decisions, inequitable in their nature.
As an example, in response to a letter from County resident Ms. Janet Gore, dated June 12, 2014, which addressed concerns for the condition of roads in light of the proposal to buy soccer fields, Huckelberry wrote on June 18, “Spending property tax money for road repairs benefitting only unincorporated area residents at the expense of City residents is not an efficient, effective, or equitable way to finance road repairs.” When asked by the AZDI to define equitable in this case, Huckelberry responded through his flak Mark Evans, “Equitable”. (sic) Means why should a city resident pay to fix a neighborhood street in the foothills that they will never drive on.”
Using his logic, the AZDI asked, “Then why should a County resident pay for soccer fields they will never use?”
Huckelberry offered only a screaming all caps non-response, “COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ARE OPEN TO THE USE OF ANYONE. NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS ARE PRIMARILY USED BY THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.” Evans explained later that the use of caps was an effort to have the response better understood.
Huckelberry then screamed, “THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGREED TO APPROPRIATE $5 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND IN 2012 AND 2013 TO AUGMENT THOSE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR THE REPAIR OF ARTERIAL ROADWAYS. THERE IS AN INHERENT INEQUITY IN THE USE OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE FUNDS COLLECTED FROM EVERYONE FOR THE REPAIR OF ROADS IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY.”
However, according to Supervisor Ally Miller, much of the money spent on County roads was not spent on road repair, but on new roads. As more and more residents flee the failing schools in Tucson and its business unfriendly attitude, the need for roads to Marana, Oro Valley and Vail, has increased.
As an example, while parts of Marana and all of Oro Valley are in Supervisor Miller’s District, and the District has received more money for road improvements than any of the County’s other districts since 1997; however over 70 percent of the roads in that District are failing.
While Huckelberry appears to agree with residents that the roads are in disrepair, he appears to disagree with the vast majority of the residents as to how to pay for the road repairs. He writes Gore, “The issue of using money for roads for soccer fields is really a red herring” because for years he has been misusing General Funds monies “by supplementing the Transportation Department with General Funds over the last few years” on new roads, but now want Gore and other residents to get behind a higher gas tax.
To sell Gore on the tax, Huckelberry notes, “A typical family spends $40 a month on state and federal gas taxes but spends $80 to $100 a month on cell phones.” The gas tax is supported by supervisors, Bronson, Elias, Valadez, and Carroll.
For years, Huckelberry had been raising taxes and then stashing money in “Consultant Non-Medical” accounts within each County department’s budget. The combined total of those funds was in the neighborhood of $24 million. This year, Huckelberry hopes to use the new “Budget Stabilization Fund” to pay for new soccer fields. That fund, according to County sources is in the neighborhood of $24 million.
Clearly Huckelberry believes that Pima County residents have considerable disposable income that they can spend on such frivolous items as cell phones, so not only will the residents’ property taxes increase, Huckelberry will fight to have their fuel costs skyrocket.
In other words, Huckelberry tells those concerned about losing their homes, “Let them play soccer.”
Related articles:
Pima County raises property taxes, lowers public morale
Pima County residents sign online petition demanding road repairs