ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

The program has pumped more than $1.4 billion into the region and is one of the most important sources of transportation funding for communities throughout the county. Now the goal is to keep it alive through a new iteration of the program called RTA Next, which could be on the ballot as early as 2024.

But that plan could live or die depending on what happens Thursday, when officials will have to find a solution to a conflict that could cause the city of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ to exit the program — and bring nearly half of the county’s voters with it.

“I think that would be very, very problematic and probably lead to the failure of the RTA at the ballot box,â€� said Gen. Ted Maxwell, one of nine members of the RTA’s governance board who represents the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Department of Transportation. “I’ll tell you the impact of the RTA not being around is much greater than anybody really realizes or imagined.â€�

The conflict began last year as city officials faced a massive funding shortfall for ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s current RTA projects, began raising issues about what they called an “inequitableâ€� RTA governing structure and demanded changes to the committee tasked with designing RTA Next.

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s City Council vowed to withdraw unless RTA leaders take five votes “at the very leastâ€� to address the concerns at Thursday’s meeting, though only two such votes have taken place since September.

“They need to make some votes and make some commitments,� Councilman Steve Kozachik said. “We’ve got conversations started, but they’re just conversations, and I think they need to make some actual, real, tangible progress.�

Local officials agree they are unlikely to reach a “tangible� solution in time and are banking on the city to push its deadline back before big changes are made.

A delay is not an option for ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥. The city has its own upcoming road work initiative, Proposition 101, that will have to be adjusted depending on what happens with the RTA, and it needs to be submitted to election officials by Feb. 1.

Compromise at the RTA also seems unlikely as the city has refused to give any ground, and other members remain opposed to ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s demands, with some like Marana Mayor Ed Honea even suggesting they would leave the RTA if certain changes are made.

“I just don’t think we’re going to crash to the city’s pressure,â€� said Honea. “We’re standing out in the middle of Broadway, and the city’s driving a ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ bus down the middle of the road and telling us if we don’t do what they want, they’re going to run over us. Right now we’re kind of saying, ‘well fine.’â€�

The end of the RTA could spell trouble for the entire region. It would put decades of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ road work at risk, stunt the expansion of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s transportation network and deprive communities of much needed infrastructure they couldn’t afford without outside help.

Weighted voting a long shot

One of the most contentious issues involves tweaking the governing board’s voting structure. It’s a sticking point for ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, a no-go for many other members and may be tricky to change even if the board can come to a consensus.

The RTA Board is made up of representatives from eight communities: ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, South ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, Pima County, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the Tohono O’odham Nation. Maxwell from ADOT is the ninth voting member.

Each jurisdiction has one vote despite representing vastly different sized populations, which range from about 6,000 residents to nearly 600,000. The city says the system disenfranchises ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ans who have only 11% of the vote despite representing 52% of the region’s population.

Changing that voting structure is not as easy as just getting the board members to agree to a new model, however. ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ law requires each member to have one vote, so changes at the state-level would have to be made — something officials agree could lead to bad things for the RTA.

“They might go back and look at other rights that have been granted to the RTA, like the ability to go to the voters with additional revenue beyond the existing half-cent,� said Supervisor Rex Scott, who represents Pima County on the RTA board. “That was controversial when the Legislature approved (the RTA) the first time and we just don’t want to reopen that.�

Romero proposed using a separate state law to get around the restrictions by first adding members to the Pima Association of Governments, a regional organization related to the RTA.

State law requires the RTA Board’s membership to mirror that of PAG’s governing body, called the Regional Council. In theory, a change to PAG’s council would automatically be applied to the RTA.

But that adjustment would still need to be approved by the governor’s office, and local officials who oppose the voting changes have said they would actively prevent the approval from happening.

“In order for us to go to any kind of weighted voting at PAG, we have to go to the governor and get it approved,� said Mayor Honea, one of the staunchest opponents of the voting system change. “The governor’s a friend of mine, and I’m going to be up there screaming, so I don’t know if he would do it.�

Other board members rejected Romero’s proposal because it gave ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ 40% of the total votes, or eight times the voting power of each of the seven smaller jurisdictions.

Sahuarita Mayor Tom Murphy said if the plan were implemented there would be “almost no reason for a lot of us to even show up.� Rex Scott also said he wouldn’t support it even though he would gain votes under Romero’s plan.

“That proposal is never going to be acceptable to everybody on the council, and I’m fairly certain that a political leader with the experience and savvy of Mayor Romero knows that,� Scott said. “The proposal that she presented at the last meeting was not a compromise proposal.�

Scott proposed another plan that would give each PAG member a certain number of votes based on population rather than adding members, something he said doesn’t need outside approval.

The voting power is more balanced in his proposal, but it only applies to PAG and won’t change the RTA’s voting system. The city could still gain some extra influence through certain PAG decisions that can impact grant funding at the RTA, for example.

Other jurisdictions would still have to agree, which will require them to sacrifice their own voting power.

Honea and Murphy aren’t on board with the change. Oro Valley Mayor Joe Winfield said he hasn’t taken a position yet, but he’s often pushed back against the proposals during board meetings.

All three said the change could pave the way for smaller towns to be disenfranchised in RTA Next and that they don’t understand why it’s necessary given that more than 95% of RTA Board and PAG votes have been unanimous since 2006.

“I just don’t see how a different voting structure would put us in a different place than where we are,� Winfield said. “If there’s a funding shortfall, voting doesn’t address that. It doesn’t address that concern. It doesn’t change that.�

RTA staff are expected to present new voting system options at Thursday’s meeting. Farhad Moghimi, the program’s executive director, said that there won’t be any “magic� solutions.

Funding gaps

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s issues with the RTA largely stem from a funding gap that the city estimates could be as high as $250 million.

City officials mainly blame the gap on inflation that made original 2006 ballot amounts far lower than what’s actually needed to complete the projects. They need to receive an “assurance� that the remaining projects will be fully-funded at Thursday’s meeting to remain in the RTA.

“If we don’t get answers on how we get (the projects) funded, that is cheating the taxpayers of the city of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥,â€� Mayor Romero said. “We need to find answers, and the meeting on Jan. 27 will be pivotal in how the city of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ moves forward.â€�

The city is unlikely to get that guarantee this week. The RTA’s Technical Management Committee, which reviews things like project costs, did not even discuss inflation adjustments at its recent meeting.

RTA officials also contend they have done their part by funding ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s projects at the 2006 ballot amount and that any extra costs are the city’s responsibility.

There was an opportunity to shrink the funding gap by millions ahead of Thursday’s meeting by approving a project adjustment that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ requested, but documents show the RTA may have failed to capitalize on it.

The adjustment was proposed for North First Avenue, one of the city’s most dangerous roads. It would have eliminated the project’s $28 million funding gap and ensured there was enough money to make safety improvements.

RTA staffers were assigned to review the suggestion but were not provided a “framework for review nor process for making recommendations� to guide their conversation. They ultimately did not reach a decision.

Board members have suggested rolling ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s remaining projects into RTA Next. If the program begins in 2024 — two years earlier than planned — it would open up new funding options and could allow the projects to be completed on time.

“ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ would be the biggest winner of an accelerated RTA Next because I believe any one of us would agree that the highest priority is completing those last projects that were at the back end,â€� said Mayor Murphy. “The city would benefit the most.â€�

But ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ can’t take a wait-and-see approach because it has its own deadline. Prop. 101, the city’s own transportation initiative, has collected a separate half-cent sales tax since 2017 and is set to expire later this year unless it’s renewed by voters.

If the city leaves the RTA, it needs to recover those funds through Prop. 101 by raising its sales tax to a full cent. City officials need to figure that out by Feb. 1 if they hope to get the initiative on the ballot in time for May’s election.

“We have to decide what we’re taking back to the voters in May. We will send a very clear message to the RTA if we ask for a half cent or if we ask for a full cent,� Kozachik said. “If it’s a full cent, the message back to the RTA is we got tired of waiting — we’re on our own.�

Area of compromise

The Citizens Advisory Committee could be an area for compromise at Thursday’s meeting, according to multiple board members.

The group is composed of 35 individuals from the region who are tasked with developing the RTA Next plan. They decide everything from what projects are included in RTA Next to the construction schedule.

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ already scored some victories during committee discussions last fall when the board unanimously passed new membership guidelines that gave the city 19 committee members, five more than they had in 2006.

The board also approved Romero’s motion to consider demographic and “interestâ€� diversity in the committee. The ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ mayor proposed the motion, in part, to ensure the approved projects include some of the city’s specific needs like transit upgrades.

“I really think that those agreements that we reached on the structure and direction to be given to the CAC indicates that everybody on the RTA Board wants to move forward together,� Scott said. “It seems to me that the best foundation for further dialogue and compromise moving forward is with the CAC. That’s the future of the RTA.�

RTA staff has since selected potential committee candidates, and the board is expected to confirm the new members on Thursday. Board members said they are open to further compromise as the committee puts RTA Next together.