Christy, McCusker, Click Pushing Pima County’s Prop 463

Pima County Supervisors joins car salesman Jim Click in supporting Proposition 463. Although supporters claim it will not raise taxes, that may not be a promise they can make.

Car salesman, Jim Click, seems to be everywhere these days touting his support for Pima County’s Proposition 463. Rio Nuevo District Board Chair Fletcher McCusker, County Supervisor Steve Christy, and other deep-pockets and notables have joined Click in his crusade.

Proposition 463, a $430,000,000 bond package before the voters, is seen by many as a last ditch effort to avoid fiscal responsibility while fixing a portion of the County’s failing roads. With over 70 percent of the County’s road in “poor” or “failed” condition due to years of fiscal mismanagement, Christy and Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry had sought a regressive sales tax as a solution.

Christy’s scheme, supported by the likes of Click, was killed by supervisors Ally Miller and Richard Elias. Sales taxes hit the poor hardest, and with Pima County the home of the fifth poorest metropolitan area in the country, and increase in the tax would have likely been devastating to residents. Pima County residents already struggle under the weight of the highest property taxes in the state.

Given the sweetheart deals Click enjoys through Rio Nuevo, it is no wonder that business people like him would prefer a regressive sales tax, but will settle for a property tax.

 

Click enjoys the benefits of a Tax Incentive Rebate Agreement with Rio Nuevo and SMG, a company that manages the Tucson Convention Center (TCC) for Rio Nuevo. The agreement involves car shows held at the TCC and reads in part:

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, the following mutual covenants and conditions, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the District and MSG hereby agree as follows:

1. Terms of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective from March 1, 2018 through February 28, 2020, unless earlier terminated as provided herein (the Term).

2. Financial Incentive Payment(s). When the gross taxable sales revenue for a single Event equals or exceeds $500,000 (Gross Sales Revenue), such Event qualifies the Customer for “Financial Incentive Payment(s) from the District as follows:

a. The Customer shall provide to the District a copy of its agreement with SMG reflecting the Event, the date(s) of the Event, and the amount of Rent and Catering Costs paid by the Customer to SMG together with (i) copies of all transaction privilege tax (TPT)returns filed by the Customer and (ii) evidence of the Customer’s payment of the TPT reflected on each such return (Incentive Application).

b. When the District receives from the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) payment of the amount reflected on the Incentive Application, the District shall remit to the Customer (i) ten (10%) percent of such TPT Incentive Application amount and (ii) up to $6,000 to defray the Customers Catering Costs for such Event. The District shall provide a copy of such was remittance to SMG.

3) Limitations on Incentives.

a. The Financial Incentive Payment shall not exceed the total amount of the Rent paid by the Customer to SMG. In the event that the Financial Incentive Payment amount exceeds the Rent paid by the Customer, such Financial Incentive Payment will be reduced to the amount of the Rent.

b. To qualify for the Financial Incentive Payment, the Event must take place on or after March 1, 2018 and either (i) take place on one calendar day or (ii) take place on five or fewer consecutive calendar days.

4. Confidentiality. The information contained on the Customer’s Incentive Application shall only be used by the District for the purpose of providing the Financial Incentive Payment as set forth herein and for no other purpose. Unless required to do so by law, neither the District nor SMG shall disclose to anyone other that the Customer the information contained in the Incentive Application. [View RN -TCC – Tax Incentive Rebate Agreement Here]

Rio Nuevo Payments To Jim Click Inc.
2016 26-Sep $12,300.00 Jim Click RN TCC Rebate Public Relations Compass Bank
2016 31-Dec $31,000.00 Jim Click RN TCC Rebate Public Relations Compass Bank
2017 4-May $12,000.00 Jim Click RN TCC Rebate Public Relations Compass Bank
2017 25-Jul $14,000.00 Jim Click RN TCC Rebate Public Relations Compass Bank
2018 6-April $45,000.00 Jim Click Rebates TCC Rebates Other Fees Compass Bank
2018 24-April $24,000.00 Jim Click Rebates TCC Rebates Other Fees Compass Bank
TOTAL $138,300.00
Rio Nuevo Payments For Lobbying Services
2018 24-April $20,750.00 Paton & Associatesk RN Lobbying Pro Services Compass Bank
TOTAL $71,500.00

While support for bringing more money into the County through bonds and taxes is understandable to a certain extent, the need for the bonds is unclear. In November 1997, Pima County voters approved $350 million in Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) bonds, to be repaid with a portion of the County’s share of HURF revenues from the State, to widen and rebuild roadways throughout Pima County and within cities and towns.

A full 18 percent ($62.4 million) of the bonds remain unused as over 70 percent of the roads fell into “poor” or ‘failed” condition.

Related article: Rio Nuevo Extension Expected To Be Rammed Through House Despite Opposition

Last year, Click was busy up at the Legislature with McCusker and lobbyist Jonathan Paton backing Rep. Mark Finchem’s bill which extended the life of the controversial Rio Nuevo District.

17 Comments on "Christy, McCusker, Click Pushing Pima County’s Prop 463"

  1. The usual suspects scratching each other’s backs! “Hell No” is my vote!

  2. The Oracle of Tucson | October 14, 2018 at 9:33 pm |

    It’s very expensive to be a member of the Pima County Players Club.
    This year the cost of insider admission is a mere $430,000,000.00 of the people’s money. That’s not to be confused with .43 BILLION dollars they are asking to be trusted with.
    And while we’ve never previously been able to trust Dingleberry or the majority of the BOS, this year will somehow be miraculously differant, this finally is the year we can rest fully at ease in knowing that we can trust Dingleberry to ensure the funding will be efficiently wasted, squandered, redirected, diverted, transferred or otherwise be redistributed, and no worries, it won’t go entirely towards improved roads.
    Despite Dingleberry’s oath of office, this (fingers already crossed) is little more then a promise not to cheat us again.
    Yea right.
    You’d think with the money we already pay this clown (above board) he could at least get his act together?

    The Oracle

  3. how many flights are booked on the balloon ride? Who’s paying the bill?

    • And how many people really want I-11?

      • Interstates and interstate commerce is not a local issue. It’s to the benefit of the country. The only thing stopping I-11 accomplishes is squashing economic opportunity. I-11 is needed because Tucson, the 5th poorest in the country directly because of the no-growth philosophy you espouse, is in the way, always standing against progress. I-10 is probably the worst stretch of interstate in the entire country because of Tucson. Why should the rest of the country subject themselves to this sh****le of a city.

        • Albert Lannon | October 15, 2018 at 6:45 pm |

          You need to change your alias to Wrong Again: I-11 in Southern Arizona is far less about interstate commerce than about international profiteering. Read the ADOT/FHWA documents for yourself at i11study.com/Arizona. “Nearshoring” is attracting US companies from China to Mexico where wages are now lower. “Integrative manufacturing” is R&D in the US with manufacturing and assembly in Mexico. I-11 is also touted as helping to attract shipping from the US west coast to the Mexican port of Guaymas. That may all be profitable for the fat cats, but it’s at the cost of robbing the rest of us. Not to mention the loss of jobs along the present I-10 corridor, the loss of tourism west of Tucson, the potential pollution of Tucson’s water supply, and the ruin of a valley with over 25,000 residents. Not to mention also that improving I-10 would cost billions of taxpayer dollars less than a new highway — ADOT’s own numbers.

  4. No thanks.

  5. We already voted NO on this BS and NO on the city parks bond wants. The city needs to fix the roads before building new parks and trails. The $$ spent for a few would go a long way for the many in the long run. Besides the parks are all for the north side of town anyhow, the rest of us be damned.

  6. So I heard Steve Christy on the radio at noon today and he actually stated (admitted) something we all know. We the taxpayers consistently tell the BOS to spend the budget wisely and with accountability and that means spend HURF dollars exclusively on roads! What he alluded to was the Board, being of Democrat majority, is OK spending the budget as it’s set, meaning they aren’t interested in changing it….until we get one more Republican on the Board, that’s just the way it is. So…STEVE, figure out a way to get another fiscal Republican elected and start spending HURF dollars where they need to go! In the meantime we aren’t giving you another dollar in Bonds until you can change the budget and show you are spending the money on the roads. If, some years down the road, the money is somewhat lacking, then come to us for Bond money!

  7. No wonder so many of my friends are living “icky” Tucson and Pima County. I’m on my way out too! My hous payment is getting ing up again f on increasing taxes!

  8. No wonder so many of my friends are leaving “icky” Tucson and Pima County. I’m on my way out too! My house payment is going up again because of increased taxes

  9. Fedup vet56 | October 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm |

    No wonder so many of my friends are leaving “icky” Tucson and Pima County. I’m on my way out too! My house payment is going up again because of increased taxes

  10. I quess I’m still old country because I like the back roads. Take a trip across on U.S or Route 60 or go up Hwy 60 into NV. Lots of good people, and places to see if you take your time. As far as I-10 it’s one of the worse roads in our State, and Tucson’s roads has more pot holes than any Town or City in the State. Once that mine goes in there it will be the end of it. Anyone remember the old Navajo Whirling Log (swastika) on the old road signs? I have one of the old road signs that has it over an arrowhead hanging on the wall. State Route 61 back then.

    • oh you mean when the Benson Hwy was the Benson Hwy, the Old Nogales Hwy. was the only Nogales Hwy’ Twin Peaks existed as someplace to go – heck even Eloy was somewhere… I remember shooting rabbits off the I-10 as it was being built, just a huge dirt berm, even Golder Damm was..a dam , Silverbell road went to the mine that was a mine… progress

      • Progress is good when it is needed, but just to add another interstate when all that is needed is to fix and improve the ones we have is a waste.

Comments are closed.