On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller rejected a risky proposal put forth by the County Administrator to delay roads repairs once again in the hope that voters will approve a massive bond package. As with the agenda item proposed today, Supervisor Miller believes that County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry continues to seek passage of bond measures rather than promote prudent fiscal practices.
Supervisor Miller was the lone no vote on the agenda item which calls on voters to pass a massive bond to finally do road repairs that the County has failed to do over the years.
Her fellow supervisors ignored the voters’ demands that the County lives within its means.
Pima County District 4 resident, John Backer, appeared with others before the supervisors today to speak in opposition to the bond scheme. “There is one common thread to the terrible road conditions in Pima County; we need to look no further than the board majority and the county administrator who has overseen the downfall of the roads in Pima County,” said Mr. Backer, during the Call to the Audience. “The road conditions are not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. It is a problem of setting proper priorities. If the HURF and VLT funds were used to maintain roads as intended, our roads would be in much better condition. The County Administrator frequently refers to the State clawing back HURF and VLT funds for other purposes while doing exactly the same thing within Pima County.”
Supervisor Miller stated, “I don’t know why the voters of this community would approve a bond and trust this Board with more money. Voters said ‘no’ to the courthouse. Voters said ‘no’ to additional soccer fields in the 2015 bond election as well. Yet this Board approved moving forward with both. Today there were items on agenda that required spending of close to $6 million for courthouse projects and they were approved 4 – 1. Supervisor Christy approved these expenditures. Supervisor Christy then went on to state this decision on bonds should be in the voters’ hands only. It appears Supervisor Christy is selective as to when he is willing to listen to the voters. My conscience does not afford me that luxury. I heard the voters loudly and clearly. They want the nonessential spending to stop. They want their roads fixed.”
In her press release, Miller encouraged resident to visit her website at https://www.allymillerdistrict1.com/ to study her Alternate Budget Proposal. Through budget reallocation, supervisor Miller was able to identify over $31 million in the FY 2018-19 budget that could legally be used to fund critical road repairs.
The Board of Supervisors’ vote on Tuesday will place the $430 million bond question on the Nov. 6 Special Bond Election ballot as Proposition 463.
In the County Administration’s press release, it is noted that the County “will craft the bond ordinance so that the bond funds can only be spent on road reconstructions, preservation and repair.”
However, in the June 19 Board of Supervisors’ meeting Huckelberry advised Miller that repairs such as “mill and fill” are allowed as a “Capitalized Asset,” but chip sealing (micro-sealing) work needs to be done every 3-5 years and it cannot be classified as a “Capitalized Asset” for tax-exempt bonds. Only road repairs that can be classified as a “Capitalized Assets” are eligible for funding with tax-exempt bonds.