City officials drew a hard line with the Regional Transportation Authority after setting a timeline to withdraw from the program that has already collected millions of tax dollars from ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ residents.
The RTA is a 20-year-long initiative dedicated to implementing a variety of transportation projects across Pima County. Voters approved the $2 billion program in 2006, which is funded by a half-cent sales tax imposed throughout the region for at least the next five years.
ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ officials raised concerns for months over RTA practices they say have left the city’s projects underfunded by $250 million, the apparent lack of a plan to address the funding shortfall, and an RTA governance system that leaves ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ without a proportional vote.
RTA representatives disagree. The program’s staff said the city’s concerns are unfounded, out of their control or have to do with rules that were agreed upon before the RTA was implemented more than 15 years ago.
People are also reading…
The staunch disagreements came to a head Sept. 14 when city leaders voted unanimously to withdraw from the next iteration of the RTA, called RTA Next, by Feb. 1 unless their concerns are addressed.
As the county’s most populous city, ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s withdrawal could spell serious trouble for RTA Next when county residents vote on the new plan in 2026.
Last week “you saw the scales tipping and we as the city of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ saying we provide the most tax revenue to the RTA, we provide the greatest population base to the RTA, and we’re going to demand changes,†said Councilman Steve Kozachik.
Voting structure is critical issue
The RTA’s voting structure is a pivotal issue for ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ officials who say the system isn’t representative of those who pay into the program.
The RTA is led by a governing body called the RTA Board, which is composed of members from the nine government bodies that participate in the program: Pima County, ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, South ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Tohono O’odham Nation and the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Department of Transportation.
Each member has equal voting power, despite the vast differences in the size of the populations they represent.
“Residents of the city of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, as contributors to (RTA) revenue and creators of almost 60% of that revenue, have one vote; 600,000 people have the same vote as the 50,000 people that live in Marana,†Mayor Regina Romero said during last week’s City Council meeting.
Romero has proposed a “weighted†voting system that gives more power to jurisdictions with larger populations, but the RTA Board has yet to get fully behind it.
Board members tabled a discussion about the change in May, and carried it over to an August meeting where they agreed to hold off on any decisions until the voting system’s impact on the RTA’s member jurisdictions is thoroughly reviewed.
Even if all member jurisdictions agree to limit their voting power, it might be a heavy lift to implement a new system. The adoption of a new voting model would require a shift in state legislation that mandates equal voting rights in Pima County’s RTA.
“That’s something that’s really beyond our control,†said Farhad Moghimi, RTA’s executive director. “That’s a state mandate.â€
ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ officials, along with the other RTA member jurisdictions, opposed the necessary legislative change in 2011, when it was introduced in the Legislature.
Now, the RTA Board will have to approve the new voting model, a state representative will have to propose the new law and it will have to pass through the legislative process.
Funding shortfall of up to $250M
Ten of the 12 uncompleted RTA roadways are in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, and estimates show the funding shortfall to finish those projects could be as high as $250 million.
Projects that are “at risk†due to funding shortages include a new bridge over the Pantano Wash on Harrison Road, where residents are frequently caught in floodwaters, according to Vice Mayor Nikki Lee.
The bridge is one of the 10 RTA roadway projects based in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ that were slated to begin construction at least 10 years after the program went into effect.
City officials agreed to the project schedule and funding levels more than 15 years ago. Construction costs have increased since then but funding has remained unchanged, contributing to the large project shortfalls.
Underfunded projects may still qualify for extra money to cover increased costs under a policy that gives the RTA Board authority to review and adjust funding levels to match inflation.
The funding adjustment — typically called an “escalator†— is not a requirement, however, and it hasn’t been applied to any projects to date.
Mayor Romero said the issue of inflation adjustment hasn’t been addressed by the RTA, and ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ transportation officials last week largely blamed the funding shortfalls on the RTA’s failure to provide escalator funding.
Despite that discussion, memos show that escalator funding was initiated in July when RTA staffers invited member jurisdictions to apply for funding that can be used to cover increased costs.
The extra money totaled about $30 million in surplus funds that were generated by higher than anticipated sales tax revenue.
Moghimi said the inflation shortfalls are a “brand new†issue and that the escalator funds weren’t provided before because earlier RTA projects didn’t need it.
“Up until recently, every project came within the budget and available funding sources ... there was no need for any escalation,†Moghimi said. “This is the first time we’ve had a need to look at escalation and apply escalation, and that’s what we did.â€
If the need arises and extra money is available, funding-level adjustments will be considered on a case-by-case basis over the remaining five years of the RTA program.
A spokesperson from the mayor’s office acknowledged the action as a movement towards addressing inflation costs for some of the underfunded projects, but said the city is looking for a comprehensive plan to address all of its project shortfalls.
Few funding solutions seen
The overarching concern among ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ officials is the apparent lack of a comprehensive plan to address all of the unfunded RTA projects. Increased revenue last year represents a step towards closing the funding gap, but its impact on the total funding shortfall is unpredictable.
Revenue surpluses will need to hit about $60 million during each of the next four years and be invested exclusively in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s unfinished projects in order to account for the city’s shortfall by 2026, according to the highest estimate.
In the past, the RTA has also utilized funds provided by its managing organization — the Pima Association of Governments — that shares the same member jurisdictions and executive director as the RTA.
PAG transferred funds to fill the RTA funding gap when revenues dipped during the Great Recession, but Moghimi said that’s not an option to cover ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥'s shortfall. PAG has already dedicated it’s available funding through 2026.
A third solution being considered would push the remaining projects into the early stages of RTA Next if there isn’t enough funding to complete them before the original RTA program expires.
Kozachik said the solution is unacceptable and believes voters won’t approve RTA Next if earlier projects are left undone.
“We’re saying no sale. The sales pitch throughout the entire 20-year RTA package has been that (the RTA) made promises to the voters in 2006 when we passed this and (the RTA) is going to keep those promises and deliver your projects,†Kozachik said about pushing unfinished projects into RTA Next.
Outcomes if city opts out
The likelihood of the program passing without the county’s most populous city is slim, but ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s withdrawal from RTA Next doesn’t necessarily mean the program will fail at the polls when it comes up for election in five years.
It’s next iteration will be on ballots regardless of the city’s participation, including in jurisdictions that are likely to continue participating in the RTA.
If the region’s voters approve the program after ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ withdraws, the city’s residents will still have to pay the half-cent sales tax to fund the program.
“I do not want to be in a situation where the county passes a half-cent sales tax, the city of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ taxpayers are paying it ... and it’s all going outside of the city,†said Councilman Paul Cunningham.