Pima County supervisors Bronson, Valadez admit failure to be informed

Observers could see the Pima County supervisors’ wheels spinning on Tuesday as they heard from South Tucson City Manager Luis Gonzales, who alleged that the County had collected an illegal tax on behalf of South Tucson.

The stress on the face of Supervisor Ramon Valadez as Gonzales told the Board that the City does not believe that the illegal tax collection was not made in error. Gonzales concluded his remarks by advising the supervisors that South Tucson’s administration reported the illegal tax to the FBI and the Arizona Attorney General’s office. Later, you could hear a pin drop as the supervisors voted unanimously to dispute a claim filed by South Tucson property owners seeking a refund of the monies the City got through the illegal tax.

Gonzales told the supervisors, “We believe that in the event that this property tax has been imposed improperly or illegally then obviously there was a shared responsibility here.” Pima County attorney denied responsibility, which could prompt a review by tax groups of all collections made by the County to determine if they have indeed neglected to ensure that other taxes they have collected are legal.

Shortly after that vote, the flustered supervisors moved to a discussion called for by Supervisor Ally Miller. Miller expressed concern that contracts that the supervisors are supposed to vote on rarely come with enough background information upon which to make an informed decision.

Bronson and Valadez were quick to support Miller’s observations and quickly threw County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry under the bus. They echoed her complaint that they were not given enough background information in a complete or timely manner, all but admitting that for years they have been voting to enter into agreements with little or no understanding of what exactly they were agreeing to.

Miller cited a contract for a building that appeared to have lapsed and might have put the County at risk without any sort of indemnification should a legal claim arise from the building’s use. “I’m not sure what you’re doing right now will cure the issue,” Bronson said of Miller’s suggestion, “but I think the point is well taken.”

Supervisor Carroll seemed confused by the exchange and sat quietly with his chair pulled away from the dais. He finally voted with Miller, Bronson, and Valadez, and Supervisor Richard Elias tried to minimalize the concerns and finally voted no.

It was clear to Board watchers that there is a shift occurring on the Board due to the increased scrutiny and potential legal liability for the supervisors’ lack of oversight over the years.

Related articles:

90 year old Pima County driver dies after crash

One alleged bullying victim withdraws complaint against Pima County Supervisor Carroll

South Tucson recall in question, one continues

About ADI Staff Reporter 12171 Articles
Under the leadership of Editor-in -Chief Huey Freeman, our team of staff reporters bring accurate,timely, and complete news coverage.