Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Agenda Packet 01/13/2004 TOWN OF MARANA, ARIZONA STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1.3251 N. Lon Adams Road January 13, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Bobby Sutton, Jr. Vice Mayor Herb Kai �.• Council Member Jim Blake Council Member Patti Comerford Council Member Tim Escobedo Council Member Ed Honea Council Member Carol McGorray Town Manager Mike Reuwsaat Welcome to this Marana Study Session. This agenda may be revised up to twenty -four hours prior to the meeting. In such a case a new agenda will be posted in place of this agenda. If you are interested in speaking to the Council during the Study Session, you must fill out a speaker card (at the rear of the Council Chambers) and deliver it to the Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting. It is up to the Mayor and Council whether individuals will be allowed to address the Council. All persons attending the Council Meeting, whether speaking to the Council or not, are expected to observe the Council Rules, as well as the rules of politeness, propriety, decorum and good conduct. Any person interfering with the meeting in any way, or acting rudely or loudly will be removed from the meeting and will not be allowed to return. To better serve the citizens of Marana and others attending our meetings, the Council Chamber is wheelchair and handicapped accessible. Any person who, by reason of any disability, is in need of special services as a result of their disability, such. as assistive listening devices, agenda materials printed in Braille or large print, a signer for the hearing impaired, etc., will be accommodated. Such special services are available upon prior request, at least ten (10) working days prior to the Council Meeting. For a copy of this agenda or questions about the Study Session, special services, or procedures, please contact Jocelyn C. Bronson, Town Clerk, at 682 -3401, Monday through Friday from 8.00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m.. ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM LISTED ON THIS AGENDA.. Amended agenda items appear in italics. Posted no later than January 12, 2004 by 7:00 o'clock p.m., at the Marana Town Hall, Marana Police Department, and the Marana Development Services Center. 0 1 TOWN OF MAR.ANA, ARIZONA STUDY SESSION AGENDA 13251 N. Lon Adams Road January 13, 2004 -- 7;00 p.m. I, CALL TO ORDER II. GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Discussion/Direction: Pima Association of Governments as Re ional Transportation Authority (Mike Reuwsaat) M. ADJOURNMENT Bobby Sutton, Jr., Mayor �hc�,rfu s }C 2 r TOWN COUNCEL TOWN MEETING OF INFORMATION MARANA DATE: January 13, 2004 F AGENDA ITEM: TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Michael A. Reuwsaat, Town Manager SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction Concerning Regional Transportation Authority Issues DISCUSSION: Staff seeks Council direction concerning transportation funding options under discussion as a result of a Pima Association of Governments (PAG) proposal to create and fund a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and regional transportation plan. A PAG- commissioned University of Arizona study (attached as Exhibit A) recommends the amendment of existing legislation to allow PAG to call for an election to authorize the implementation of an additional one -half cent county -wide sales (excise) tax for transportation. The proposed legislative amendment is attached as Exhibit B. PAG is currently authorized to serve as the RTA. There is a brief opportunity to attach a PAG sales tax authorization rider to this year's Maricopa County half -cent transportation sales tax reauthorization. In response to the PAG proposal, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry prepared a Board of Supervisors memorandum (attached as Exhibit C) concerning potential sources, amounts and allocation of various potential transportation funding options. The memo concludes that, other than a property tax, a sales tax increase provides the best substantial on -going revenue stream to fund transportation infrastructure. s An additional half -cent sales tax would make the region's sales tax comparable to other Arizona regions. A comparison study of State and Local Retail Sales Tax Rates by City (attached as Exhibit D) indicates that most Arizona municipalities have a combined sales tax rate of at least 8.1 percent — a half cent higher than any Pima County municipality except South Tucson. Town staff estimates that a half cent sales tax increase will generate approximately $3.2 million annually from Marana. The PAG proposal guarantees only $550,000 annually to fund Town transportation infrastructure. The Town Council already has statutory authority to increase the sales tax and to use it for local transportation infrastructure. Local transportation infrastructure needs are significant. The Town is preparing to build the Twin Peaks Interchange and Bridge over the Santa Cruz River. Assuming no additional funding from federal or other regional sources, the cost to build the Bridge over the Santa Cruz River alone is estimated at $28 million, and if dedicated solely to this project, almost all of the funding for the first 10 years of a half cent sales tax increase would be needed to retire the debt service for this project on a 10 year bond payout. Significant other local transportation projects for Marana include the improvement and expansion of Tangerine Road, the realignment and expansion of Camino de Marana from the Twin Peaks • Interchange to Dove Mountain, realignment of the Marana I -10 Interchange exit with capacity improvements, and capaci ADMIN/SRG /1/9/2004 -. F improvements to Cortaro Road. In the past few years, Marana has taken the lead regionally and has adopted both a transportation impact fee and a 4% construction sales tax to fund transportation infrastructure. Other entities have yet to adopt one or both of these two funding mechanisms. Staff would be hard pressed to support any regional transportation plan or authority that creates a donor situation for Marana by failing to provide transportation infrastructure that benefits the area generating the revenues. Staff supports the concept of an RTA and the use of increased sales tax to fund transportation infrastructure. Staff neither opposes nor supports PAG as the RTA. Staff proposes to follow the legislation and to provide appropriate feedback on the Town's behalf. A PAG representative will be present at this session to discuss that agency's opinion. RECOMMENDATION: Town staff supports regionally coordinated transportation planning. Staff also supports the concept of a half cent sales tax to fund transportation improvements. SUGGESTED MOTION: Council's pleasure ADMIN/SRG /1/9/2004 I move that we support Regional Transportation Authority legislation that: 1. Retains one vote per entity governance. 2. Authorizes the RTA to call for an election to approve an additional one -half cent county- wide sales tax to fund the regional transportation plan. 3. Extends the tax authorization period from ten to twenty years. 4. Amends the current legislation to allow for a twenty year transportation plan. 5. Does not authorize one jurisdiction to exercise veto authority of any kind. 6. Provides for local government implementation of the approved transportation plan projects. 7. Authorizes the RTA to decline regional transportation funding to local governments that have not adopted regionally consistent transportation impact fees and/or other similar funding sources generated from new development. 8. Provides a geographic nexus between revenues generated and transportation expenditures instead of a minimum- percentage distribution to each jurisdiction. 9. Provides for adequate citizen input. I also move that staff be instructed to investigate the benefits and implications of a half -c Town sales tax increase dedicated to subregional transportation improvements. W/ 1e W � . 1/13/2004 6:15 PM i - PIMA ASSOCIA TION OF GOVERNMENTS AS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORA TA TION A UTHORITY.- OPTIONS AND IMPACTS Report to the Pima Association of Governments Regional Council November 19, 2003 Institute for Local Government The University of Arizona "Y . ,tzns xe-e � c o .fin go rnme o er Plan for solution of "regional °problems Prepare for growth and development o a ansportation anningt ro ess¢ Distribute federahtransportation`funding Approve`transpo ; 996An excise tax Approve ten -year regional transportation plan Produce five -year transportation improvement plan (TIP) Regional Council RTA PAG (COG/MPO) Executive Director Employees ➢ Jurisdiction: All or parts of the county Voting: Numerical system (one vote per member); County and Tucson must approve Administration: Adopt budget, hire employees, set policies, set salaries, establish committees, Approve: Ten -year RTP and any changes to it Produce: Five -year TIP Coordinate: Implementation of ten-year plan 9 Finance: Issue bonds, seek voter approval of excise tax Distribute: Regional transportation fund monies ➢Introduce enabling legislation to reinstate taxing authority (Title 42 -6106) ➢Legislation must specify conditions under which an election can be called ➢Conditions include: Transportation excise tax (one -half percent on state classifications) Jet Fuel (.305 cents per gallon) Electricity and natural gas Duration of tax (ten years) Publicity pamphlet PAG finances election costs Ten -year plan elements and their funding sources Summary of the ten -year regional transportation plan ➢Develop ten -year regional transportation plan ➢Vote to request board of supervisors to call an election ➢Make administrative changes (if desired) O SO - M 1c Omml . . o er _ A - c te - ap ova �c s r . cal Ianeec 'o _ ch �uisdic ons re espoisiil�eo eac rojec imp emen a on x MW WT e urer a es`payme NQ c ec o ch irvancl �varXan s unnecessary WE E. N VT ADOT constructs and-Imam tauis controlled access highways approved by voters x Ste- 4 _ '� '� Ks�.a t"�¢� :. urisdicfion can contract to construct and maintain streets or highways ap roved by voters ' F u Affer� constraichon completion,d�urisdictions maintain streets and highways z s� ti : s ;a 'f ?t�, tit t q 'a � r 9 k f r , ?; r r r 3 vvf i Sources Transportation excise tax ($55 million) Member contributions Grants, gifts, donations Federal and state funds Fares, user fees Bond proceeds i Accounts Bond I i Construction (excise tax -can be used to pay off bonds) Bond proceeds I s u c n, $300,000 or 1 percent ($550,000) to Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita and South Tucson $300,000 to PAG if necessary i enie n E- < Roadway improvements Controlled access highways Parkways and arterials Arterial upgrades Grade separations i Transit improvements for buses Express routes,, Connecting terminals Ridesharing l Para transit 1 Van pool fleet Park and ride lots express and light rail systems licyele and pedestrian projects ADDITIONAL ISSN THE F RUT - Enabling legislation for taxing authority RTA models Organization and Structure Funding mechanisms Voting schemes Board composition Operations Impacts and implications if taxing authority approved Organizational changes Acquiring and operating transit Clear definition of "regional" Continue to fund local maintenance Type of leadership appropriate for success Other legislative initiatives Twenty -year authorization for twenty-year RTP RTA membership Voting methods Interview responses References and list of interviewees t C �/ u Mike Reuwsaat EXH 1 BIT B From: Jim Altenstadter galtensta @pagnet.orgj Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:32 AM To: Jim Stahle; Chuck Sweet; Mike Reuwsaat; James Keene; Charles Huckelberry; Fernando Castro; Diana Coonce; Greg Saxe; Benny Young; jpein @dot.state.az.us; John Bernal; Kurt.Weinrich @dot.pima.gov; JGlock @ci.tucson.az.us Cc: ccampbell @pagnet.org Subject: PAG Regional Council Transmittal ®! J 3 RTABILL ATT00004.t(t (59 )06257- 4) 1217031F B) The follow -up transmittal regarding the PAG Regional Council's action this week regarding the Regional Transportation Authority statute is being hand - delivered this morning to each Regional Council member with copies to each of you. Enclosed will be the corrected mark -up of the statute. You should receive the material by noon. Let me know if you do not receive it by then. I've attached an e- version of the marked -up RTA statute. I will appreciate receiving notice of when your governing body will discuss this item, so that PAG staff can attend and provide assistance, as directed by the Regional Council. I can be reached at 792 -1093, extension 441. Thanks. Jim Altenstadter PAG Interim Executive Director 1 Strikeout = deletions BOLD = amendments or additions AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 42 -6106; 48 -5303; 48-5302,48-5304,48-5309 ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING LAWS 1990 CHAPTER 380, SECTION 8. Section 1. Section 42 -6106, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 42- 6106. County transportation excise tax for roads; county population requirements A. In a county with a population exceeding four hundred thousand but fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons, if a majority of the qualified electors voting at a countywide special election, or a majority of the qualified electors voting on the ballot proposition at a general election, approves the transportation excise tax, the regional transportation authority shall levy up to the rate authorized by this section and the department shall collect a tax: Deleted: onl With subsequent ley 1. At a rate of not more than ten per cent of the transaction privilege tax rate prescribed by authority subject to prior le aufhorization, section 42 -5010, subsection A in effect on January 1, 1990 applying to each person engaging or continuing in the county in a business taxed under chapter 5, article 1 of this title. 2. In the case of persons subject to the tax imposed under section 42 -5352, subsection A, at a rate of not more than .305 cents per gallon of jet fuel sold. 3. On the use or consumption of electricity or natural gas by retail electric or natural gas customers in the county who are subject to use tax under section 42 -5155, at a rate equal to the transaction privilege tax rate under paragraph 1 applying to persons engaging or continuing in the county in the utilities transaction privilege tax classification. B. Any subsequent reduction in the transaction privilege tax rate shall not reduce the tax which is approved and collected as prescribed in this section. The department shall collect the tax at a variable rate if the variable rate is specified in the ballot proposition. The department shall collect the tax at a modified rate if approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting. C. The net revenues collected under this section shall be deposited in the regional transportation fund pursuant to section 48 -5307. D. The tax shall be levied under this section beginning January 1 or July 1, whichever date occurs first after approval by the voters, and may be in effect for a period of not more than - Deleted: ten TWENTY years. Section 2. Section 48 -5302, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48 -5302. Regional transportation authority in counties with population of more than four hundred thousand but less than one million two hundred thousand persons; establishment; executive director A. A regional transportation authority is established in a county with a population of more than four hundred thousand but less than one million two hundred thousand persons. B. An authority is a public, political, tax levying public improvement and taxing subdivision of this state and a municipal corporation to the extent of the powers and privileges conferred by this RTABILL (A00062574) 1217031PAGRevised.doc I of 8 12/19/2003 chapter or granted generally by the constitution and statutes of this state, including immunity of its property and the interest income and gain on its bonds from taxation. C. The membership of the authority consists of each municipality in the county and the county AND ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. The authority may operate in all areas of the county in which it is organized. D. The executive director of the regional council of governments acts as the executive director of the authority and serves in that specific role until replaced at the discretion of the board of the regional council of governments. Section 3. Section 48 -5303, Arizona revised Statutes, is amended to read: 48 -5303 Board of directors A. In a county, the government of the authority is vested in a board of directors composed of the members of the fnem of jtffisdietiens of the regional council of governments with one vote each when determining transportation policy, SCHEDULING AND IMPLEMENTATION as the regional transportation authority. HOWEVER, IF THE COUNTY AND CITY WITH THE LARGEST POPULATION IN THE COUNTY DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE VOTE, THE NUMERICAL VOTE SHALL HAVE NO FORCE AND EFFECT. B. The members of the board shall: 1. Appoint a chairman from among the members at the first official meeting of the board. 2. By rule determine its officers, terms and procedures of appointment. Section 4. That section 48 -5304, Arizona revised Statutes, is amended as follows: § 48 -5304. Board duties The board shall: 1. Determine the exclusive public transportation systems to be acquired and constructed, the means to finance the systems and whether to operate the systems or to let contracts for their operation. In the operation of the public transportation system the board may use public transportation facilities used by a municipality, subject to & 48 -5308, subsection F . 2. Approve a request for an election to the board of supervisors contingent on formal approval, including approval of proposed elements for the _TWENTY year regional transportation plan, of Deleted: ten the request by the county and the city with the largest population in the county for submission of the following issues to the electorate: (a) Approval of a transportation excise tax authorized by 4� 2 -6106 (b) Approval of elements of the .TWENTY year regional transportation plan developed pursuant Deleted: ten to 4§ 8 -5309 as the TWENTY year regional transportation plan- _ _ _ Deleted: ten (c) Approval of changes in the TWENTY year regional_transportatlo_n plan pursuant to §j8- _ _. _ - f Deleted: ten 5309, subsection B 3. Produce annually a five year transportation improvement program that is consistent with the Deleted: ten TWENTY year regional transportation plan elements approved by a majority of the qualified electors and that contains the following: (a) Projects financed with monies from the regional transportation fund. (b) A description of each project, including a schedule of expenditures and sources of funding for each project. RTABILL (A00062574) 1217031PAGReviseddoc 2 of 8 12/19/2003 (c) The political subdivision with responsibility for project implementation. 4. Assure that projects proposed for federal, state or local funding appear in the regional transportation authority's transportation improvement program and in the transportation improvement program of the regional council of governments. 5. Not later than January 1 of each year for publication in at least two newspapers of the county in January, assess and analyze the status and implications of the transportation improvement program with respect to the occurrence of substantial change as defined in 48 -5309 and with respect to the potential for or occurrence of the following conditions: (a) An actual project expenditure that exceeds the project budget amount shown in the first year of the transportation improvement program by five per cent or more. (b) A project cost amount that exceeds by ten per cent or more the project budget amount that appears in the first year of the transportation improvement program. (c) First year and five year cumulative projected expenditures for all elements of the _TWENTY Deleted: ten year regional transportation plan in the five year transportation improvement program that exceed revenue estimates for corresponding periods by twenty per cent or more. 6. Provide for development of a supplement to the TWENTY year regional transportation plan Deleted: ten developed pursuant to 4& 8 -5309 and approved as the TWENTY year reglonal transportation -- Deleted: ten plan by a majority of the qualified electors voting that encompasses a period of such duration as is necessary to be coterminous with the effective period of a transportation excise tax approved pursuant to 4§ 2 -6106 Provision for development of the supplement shall be made not earlier than the fourth year and not later than the second year before the expiration of the TWENTY Deleted: ten year regional transportation plan. 7. Adopt an annual budget, hire employees and fix the compensation of its employees. 8. Cause a postaudit of the financial transactions and records of the board to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant. 9. Adopt rules that are proper or necessary to regulate the use, operation and maintenance of its property and facilities, including its public transportation systems and related transportation facilities and services operating in its area of jurisdiction, and to carry into effect the powers granted to the board. 10. Appoint advisory committees as it deems necessary. 11. Have sole authority to implement the elements of the - TWENTY year regional transportation_ Deleted: ten plan approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting, including authority to contract for, absorb or acquire existing public transportation services as it deems necessary. 12. Coordinate the implementation of the regional transportation plan among the local jurisdictions. 13. Contract for financial, administrative, underwriting and trust services necessary to issue bonds pursuant to 48 -5341 through 48 -5347 and administer the regional transportation fund pursuant to 48 -5307. subsection B . 14. Hire legal counsel to represent the authority in any legal proceeding, accountants and other professional personnel as it deems necessary. 15. Set the priorities of the plan and administer and facilitate the distribution of monies in the regional transportation fund. 16. Delegate to the general manager any of the administrative functions, powers or duties that the board believes the general manager can competently, efficiently and properly perform. 17. Contract and enter into stipulations of any nature necessary and convenient for the full exercise of the powers granted in this chapter. RTABILL (A00062574) 1217031PAGRevised.doc 3 of 8 12/19/2003 18. Do all things necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Section 6. That section 48 -5309, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended as follows: 48 -5309. Planning; definition § 48 -5309. Planning; definition —� A. The authority shall develop a ,TWENTY year regional transportation plan for implementation Deleted: ten that is financed by a transportation excise tax approved pursuant to 4§ 2 -6106 and bonds issued pursuant to §& 48 -5341 through 48 -5347 The .TWENTY year regional transportation plan: �eieted: teo 1. Shall include a public transportation component. 2. May, among other things: (a) Define and identify regional transportation corridors. (b) Define the transportation problems, goals and needs for each corridor. (c) Determine environmental, economic, energy and social policies to guide transportation investment decisions. (d) Determine the impact of the plan on air quality, with one of the goals of the plan being the improvement of air quality. (e) Order the priority of regional transportation corridors for development. (f) Determine the mix of alternative transportation modes appropriate for development in light of the transportation goals and needs for each corridor. The mix may include sidewalks, rail service, buses, vans, para - transit, park and ride lots, bicycle facilities and any other facility or service reasonably related to transportation. (g) Select appropriate public transportation technology. (h) Determine the capacity for exclusive public transportation technologies. (i) Determine operating performance criteria and costs for public transportation systems. 0) Locate routes and access points to the public transportation systems. (k) Determine the ridership of public transportation systems. (1) Determine the need for landscape buffers, noise barriers, pedestrian bypasses, multi -use paths and other environmental impact mitigation measures relating to the regional transportation plan. B. A TWENTY year_regional_transportationplan that is approved by a majority of the qualified Deleted: ten electors voting on submission of the plan adopted by the regional planning agency may not be amended to add or delete an element or substantially change an element without prior approval of the electorate at a general or special election. Voter approval of an amendment or a substantial change shall be sought pursuant to subsection F of this section. C. The prior approval of the electorate required by subsection B of this section is waived if a political subdivision causing changes within its jurisdiction to the TWENTY year regional Deleted: ten transportation plan incurs the incremental costs of implementing the proposed changes. D. Within the time intervals specified by this subsection from the date of approval of a transportation excise tax as provided in 4§ 2 -6106 the regional transportation authority shall not distribute from the aggregate of transportation excise tax monies received at any time by the regional transportation fund an amount of monies that exceeds the percentage share of the transportation excise tax approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting for a transportation element of the TWENTY year regional transportation plan by a relative Deleted: ten - - - -- --------- ------ percentage in excess of the percentage specified for the following time intervals: 1. Three years or less, fifteen per cent. 2. More than three years but not more than five years, ten per cent. 3. More than five years but not more than seven years, five per cent. RTABILL (A0006257 -4) 1217031PAGRevised.doc 4 of 8 12/19/2003 4. More than seven years but not more than nine years, two per cent. 5. More than nine years but not more than ten years, zero per cent. E. The proposition for a revised TWENTY year regional transportation plan considered at an Deleted: ten election held pursuant to subsection F of this section shall adhere to the format applicable to the ballot proposition approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting on the initial Deleted: ten TWENTY year regional transportation plan. F. If one or more of the conditions specified by subsection G of this section occur, the board of the authority shall request the county board of supervisors to provide a ballot proposition for consideration of a revised TWENTY year regional transportation plan on or before the date of Deleted: ten the next general election. If the board of supervisors fails to provide the proposition at the next general election or if a majority of the qualified electors voting at the election does not approve a proposition for a revised TWENTY year regional transportation plan, expenditures authorized Deleted: te" pursuant to 4� 8.5308, subsection C , except those obligated as of the date of the general election, are prohibited. G. In this section, "substantial change" means a change that, based on data in the transportation improvement program developed pursuant to 4� 8 -5304 paragraph 3, results in one or more of the following conditions: 1. A present worth of estimated expenditures required to complete all elements of the Deleted: ten TWENTY year regional transportation plan that exceeds the present worth of estimated revenues available to the regional transportation fund during the comparable period by ten per cent or more, except that estimated revenues from bond proceeds, if any, shall not exceed the bond capacity, less associated expenses, supported by estimates of unencumbered revenues for the initial TWENTY years of authorization for the transportation excise tax. The preceding five - - -- Deleted: ten year average of the GDP price deflator as defined in 4� 1 -563 shall be used to discount the respective series of estimated revenues and expenditures to a present worth. 2. An estimated cost to complete one or more elements of the TWENTY year regional Deleted: ten transportation plan as approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting that exceeds the expenditure limitations of the - TWENTY year regional transportation_ plan as adjusted by _the____ _ ten GDP price deflator as defined in 4& 1 -563 by the following or greater percentages: (a) Ten per cent for a single element of the plan. (b) Fifteen per cent for any two elements of the plan. (c) Twenty per cent for three or more elements of the plan. Section 7. Laws 1990, second regular session, chapter 380, section 8 is amended to read: Sec.(31). Special or general election in counties with a population in excess of four hundred thousand but fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons; purpose; publicity pamphlet; ballot The board of directors of the regional transportation authority of a county with a population in excess of four hundred thousand but fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons by resolution, shall request the board of supervisors of the county to cause to be placed on the ballot for the qualified electors of the county at a special or general election held on or before November 3,449-2 2023 the question of approving a countywide transportation excise tax as provided by section 42 1493 42 -6106, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. The board of RTABILL (.400062574) 1217031PAGRevised.doc 5 of 8 12/19/2003 supervisors shall specify on the ballot the rate of tax applicable to the amount or volume of business activity subject to the tax determined by the length of time the tax is to be in effect. The percent rate of a countywide transportation excise tax shall not exceed the maximum per cent prescribed in section 421483 42 -6106, Arizona Revised Statutes, and the length of time the tax would be in effect shall not exceed tffi TWENTY years. The countywide transportation excise tax must be approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting at the special election or by a majority of the qualified electors voting on the ballot proposition at the general election. An election held pursuant to subsection A of this section shall have on the ballot a description of each transportation element in paragraphs 1 through 5 of this subsection including a separate percentage share and absolute dollar share of a countywide transportation excise tax authorized pursuant to subsection A of this section as expenditure limits for each element determined and submitted by the board of the regional transportation authority to the board of supervisors for inclusion on the ballot. The following proposed transportation elements and associated electors voting at the special election or by a majority of the qualified electors voting on the ballot proposition at the general election: 1. A roadway improvement plan including controlled- access highways and related grade separations, parkways, controlled- access arterials and arterial upgrades and additional improvements as are necessary to implement roadway.components of a regional transportation plan as well as improvements necessary for safety, dust control, drainage or accommodation of bicyclists, pedestrians or other travelways directly a part of the roadway. 2. A transit improvement plan for buses including an expanded bus fleet and associated maintenance facility, expanded express routes and associated connecting terminals, ridesharing, acquisition of a van pool fleet, including transportation for the handicapped and elderly, park and ride lots and additional improvements as are necessary to implement bus transit components of a regional transportation plan. 3. An express and light rail transit system plan. 4. A bicycle improvement plan of projects including neighborhood bike routes and a plan of bikeways focused on major regional activity center destinations. 5. A pedestrian improvement plan of projects for neighborhood walkways and walkways focused on major regional activity center destinations. Each of the elements in subsection B of this section or any less inclusive combination of subelements contained within the same paragraph of subsection B of this section may appear concurrently as a single ballot proposition pursuant to subsection B of this section, except that the expenditure limits for each element or less inclusive combination of subelements must appear within the proposition for approval by a majority of the qualified voters. Collection and distribution of a countywide transportation excise tax approved pursuant to subsection A of this section is subject to approval of at least one of the transportation elements defined and approved pursuant to subsection B or C of this section. s The board of directors of the regional transportation authority may request the board of supervisors to order and call such elections more than once. The cost of conducting such election, including the question of approving the countywide transportation excise tax and all other costs, including translation fees, telecommunication costs, legal fees and costs, printing, publication and mailing of notices and pamphlets with respect to the election and all salaries, costs and expenses of election board officers, county employees either permanent or temporary allocated to the election is payable on a pro rata basis from the RTABILL (A00062574) 1217031PAGRevised.doc 6 of 8 12/19/2003 cities' share of the lottery monies distributed under section 28 -2602, Arizona Revised Statutes, and from the county's share of the county assistance fund established under section 41 -175, Arizona Revised Statutes. If the countywide transportation excise tax is approved, the county's costs and expenses shall be repaid from the first monies received into the construction fund from the proceeds of the tax levied pursuant to section 42 -6106, Arizona Revised Statutes. In addition to any other election requirements prescribed by law, the board of supervisors shall prepare and print a publicity pamphlet concerning the countywide transportation excise tax that is subject to a vote of the people. The board of supervisors shall cause to be distributed not less than ten nor more than thirty days before the election one copy of the publicity pamphlet to each household containing a registered voter within the county. The publicity pamphlet required by this section shall contain all of the following: 1. The date of the election. 2. The individual household's polling place and the times the polling place will be open. 3. A summary of the regional transportation system plan adopted by the regional planning agency which describes the transportation corridors and gives their priorities and, if provided by the regional planning agency, a suggested construction schedule for controlled - access highways, arterial streets, highways, and public transportation facilities in the county. 4. An estimate of the annual amount of the countywide transportation excise tax revenues to be raised. 5. The form in which the countywide transportation excise tax will appear on the ballot. In addition to any other ballot requirements prescribed by law the clerk of the board of supervisors shall cause to be printed-on the official ballot a summary of the purposes for which the countywide transportation excise tax may be spent, including the construction of controlled - access highways in the transportation corridors identified in the regional transportation plan, the construction of arterial streets and highways which are included in the regional transportation plan, construction of public transportation facilities, construction of alternative modes of transportation, construction of mitigation measures and increased funding for operating a regional bus system and other special transportation services. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the election shall be conducted as nearly as practicable in the manner prescribed for general elections in title 16, Arizona Revised Statutes. Sec. 9. General election in counties with a population in excess of four hundred thousand but fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons; purpose; publicity pamphlet; ballot The board of supervisors of a county with a population in excess of four hundred thousand but fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons, by resolution, may cause to be placed on the ballot for the qualified electors of the county at a general election the question of approving an amendment or substantial change to the regional transportation plan adopted by the regional planning agency, as provided in section 28 -2905, Arizona Revised Statutes. The amendment or substantial change must be approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting on the ballot proposition at the general election. The additional cost to the county of including on the ballot proposition the question of approving amendments or substantial changes to the regional transportation plan and all other costs, including legal fees and costs and printing, publication and mailing of notices and pamphlets, with respect to the election shall be repaid to the county from monies received into the construction account of the authority's regional transportation fund from the proceeds of the tax levied pursuant to section 42 -6106, Arizona Revised Statutes. RTABILL (A00062574) 1217031PAGRevised.doc 7 of 8 12/19/2003 f In addition to any other election requirements prescribed by law, the board of supervisors shall prepare and print a publicity pamphlet concerning the amendment or substantial change to the regional transportation plan that is subject to a vote of the people. The board of supervisors shall cause to be distributed not less than ten nor more than thirty days before the election one copy of the publicity pamphlet to each household containing a registered voter within the county. The publicity pamphlet required by this section shall contain all of the following: 1. The date of the election. 2. The individual's household's polling place and the times the polling place will be open. 3. A summary of the regional transportation plan adopted by the regional planning agency and showing the proposed amendments or substantial changes to the plan which describes the transportation corridors and gives their priorities and, if provided by the regional transportation authority, a suggested construction schedule for controlled- access highways, arterial streets and highways and public transportation facilities in the county. 4. The form of ballot. In addition to any other ballot requirements prescribed by law the clerk of the board of supervisors shall cause to be printed on the official ballot a summary of the principal provisions of the measure. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the general election shall be conducted as nearly as practicable in the manner prescribed for general elections in title 16, Arizona Revised Statues. Sec. 10. Intent regarding expenditure limitations Monies which are collected pursuant to a county transportation excise tax levied under title 42, chapter 8.3. article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, and which are expended according to the purpose prescribed by article IX, section 20, subsection (3), paragraph (d), subdivisions (i) and (viii), Constitution of Arizona, are exempt from the jurisdictions' expenditure limitation. Sec. 11. Emergency To preserve the public peace, health and safety it is necessary that this act become immediately operative. It is therefore declared to be an emergency measure, to take effect as provided by law. RTABILL (A00062574) 121703 1 PAGRevised.doc 8 of 8 12/19/2003 EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM .� �. �Y ®r �Y...w 1 111 Y�4:�•� Y G ATE /�- _`'-3 ITEM Date: P ATE ,,-2003 To: The Honorable Chair and Members From: C.H. Huckelberry Pima County Board of Supervisors County Administ Re: Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation Background Presently there is continuing discussion over the problem of implementing and financing regional transportation improvements. These discussions are - occurring at the Pima Association of Governments Regional Council, within the governing bodies of several municipalities within the County, as well as the University of Arizona. Finding a solution to this problem has been elusive, particularly since only one of three countywide elections on financing transportation improvements has passed since 1986. One countywide general obligation bond election regarding the Rillito Parkway failed in 1984, and two elections within the City of Tucson regarding financing and implementing transportation improvements solely within the City of Tucson also failed (see Table 1). In summary, only one of the last six countywide or City of Tucson ballot measures on transportation was approved. The purpose of this memorandum is to give the Board some background regarding regional transportation issues, and to help define and develop consensus on future solutions for both financing and implementing regional transportation improvements. History of Regional Transportation Financing Legislation and Use of Excise Taxes in the State The Arizona Legislature, in 1984, authorized the two large urban areas within the state to finance and implement transportation improvements. Previously all transportation improvements have been funded through the distribution of Highway User Revenue Funds to the state, cities, and counties. The original legislation was crafted differently for Maricopa and Pima counties. The legislation reflected the different approaches of each region regarding provision of regional transportation improvements. Maricopa County desired and developed a freeway system. Pima County desired an emphasis on expanding and improving principal existing highways as opposed to constructing new freeways. Maricopa County, on October 8, 1985, approved their funding proposition enacting a countywide half -cent sales tax by a vote of 72 percent yes to 28 percent no. The Pima County proposition was placed before the voters on December 9, 1986, and defeated by a vote of 43 percent yes to 56 percent no. This legislation remains effectively the same as it was when enacted. In essence, the Pima Association of Governments, acting as the metropolitan planning organization, functions as an "authority," however, its primary duties relate to regional transportation planning, with implementation generally left to the member organizations within the metropolitan planning organization since each member organization has a transportation department that routinely plans, designs and builds transportation capacity within their respective areas of authority. In addition, funding under this scheme was to have been a sales tax, and the current ability to call for a sales tax election has expired in the existing legislation. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 2 The only other significant development related to excise taxes and transportation has been the expansion of the authority of counties to levy an excise tax for a variety of purposes. Today, all counties in Arizona except Pima have an excise tax in place, and 13 counties have sales taxes that go to their General Fund that can be used to build, operate and construct transportation improvements. Most importantly, the Maricopa tax authorized in 1985 with a 20 year duration will soon expire unless reauthorized by the Arizona Legislature, hence the present effort to use the Maricopa reauthorization effort for the benefit of Pima County. History of Countywide Elections Related to Transportation, as well as Elections of the City of Tucson, Maricopa Countv and Cities Below is a table that lists all of the countywide or citywide elections related to transportation that have occurred since 1984 in both Pima and Maricopa counties. With one exception, all countywide elections in Pima County regarding transportation have failed. The single election that did pass was the 1997 Transportation Highway User Revenue Bond election of the County, currently being implemented. For Maricopa County, the results are mixed - most of the municipal elections were directed at transit systems or facilities. Table 1 Transportation Elections in Pima and Maricopa Counties Since 1983 Voter Election Date Jurisdiction Revenue Source Yes % No % Turnout % 1. November 6, 1984 , Pima County Rillito Corridor 42 : = 58 "�. 74 2. October 8, 1985 Maricopa County' 1/2 Cent Sales Tax 72 28 34 3 December 9, 1986 Pima County Cent 5a1es Tax.''; _ 43 `. 56 31 4 _ March 28, 1989 Maricopa County 112 Cent Sales Tax; 39 61 43 5., November 6,. "I 990 ` Pima County I /2 Cent Sales Tax 39 61 56 6. November 8, 1994 Maricopa ;1 /2 Cent Sales Tax 44 51 55 , 7. September 10, 1996 Tempe Sales for Transit (z) 52 45 21 8. September 9 1997,_ Scottsdale Sales or Transit � 37 63 21 9, September. 9, 1997' Phoenix z , Sales for Transit (z' 49 10. November 4, 1997 Pima County County HURF Bond 57 40 35 11. , May 18;.1999 Chandler X12 Cent Sales Tax 40 60 9 12. March 14, 2000 Phoenix Sales for Transit 12 ' 65 35 . 25 13. May 21, 2002. Tucson„ 1 /2 Cent Sales Tax`. 31 69 "25 14.7 November 4,;2003 Tucson 1 /2,Cent Sales Tax 38 62 41 Footnotes 1 . Shaded designates ballot measures that have failed. 2. Most of the funding was or is to be dedicated to transit. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 3 Three general conclusions can be drawn from these election results. First, Pima elections have been the least successful. Second, Maricopa, thought to generally approve all transportation elections, has not been as successful as one would think since the last two attempts to extend the general excise tax have failed. Third, Maricopa cities are taking the lead in funding transit initiatives, not the County. Status of 1997 Highway User Revenue Bond Authorization In any discussion regarding continuing transportation investment, it is important to provide a general status report of the implementation status of the 1997 County Highway User Revenue Bond _ Authorization. Today we are the only jurisdiction making significant investments in new transportation capacity. Of 57 projects, 22 have been completed or are under construction, representing 39 percent of the program, while 40 percent of the 15 year planned program life of 1997 to 2012 has elapsed. Based on analyses that will be provided in a separate report by mid - December of this year, the 1997 program is fully implementable, probably with no unfunded project outside of those projects of the City of Tucson. In the last year, projects originally estimated to cost nearly $40 million have been completed or bid for $24 million, a substantial savings. This is expected to continue. Approval of a one -half cent sales tax and distribution as I have recommended for the City of Tucson would allow them to provide the necessary matching funds for their projects. Board- adopted transportation impact fees are having a significant benefit in funding new transportation capacity in the unincorporated area of the County. Over $40 million in impact fees will be applied to bond authorized projects in the County. Because impact fees are an equitable way for new growth to pay a fair share of our needed transportation improvement program, I have suggested that all jurisdictions adopt impact fees if they are to receive new excise taxes for transportation improvements. History of Regional Transportation Planning and Needs The Pima Association of Governments is responsible for developing the regional transportation plan. A plan has existed throughout the last 25 years, and generally receives a major update every five years. Plans have ranged from parkway systems to grade- separated intersections, to increasing emphasis on transit. The only thing that remains the same in each of the plans is that levels of congestion and travel time continue to increase throughout the region as urban growth rapidly continues and we fall further and further behind in providing basic transportation infrastructure capacity. No jurisdiction has been able to keep pace with transportation capacity needs caused by increasing population expansion, as well as increasing vehicle miles of travel within the region. The plan adopted in January of 2001 indicated that 531 new lane miles of arterial collector streets and 12 new grade- separations would be needed by the year 2025. The regional plan update adopted on November 26, 2003, deleted the 12 grade- separated intersections; however, there is no new estimate on the number of additional lane miles of highway capacity needed to meet travel demand. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 4 Generally, the Pima Association of Governments has been effective in planning for regional transportation improvements. Unfortunately the revenue structure to implement regional transportation improvements has never materialized. Therefore improvements are sporadic and generally unpredictable. The 2001 plan indicated that total system needs were estimated at $10.7 billion, with only $6.6 billion available from existing revenue sources. The plan then also indicated potential new revenue sources could include a new inflation index gas tax, development impact fees, and a countywide quarter -cent transit sales tax. The plan also assumed these new taxes would begin in 2003. Obviously such has not occurred. Presently the final draft of the Regional Transportation Plan amendment to update the previously referenced adopted plan indicates the cost has risen to $11.27 billion. This plan identifies transportation capacity improvements totaling nearly $5.8 billion with the largest share of these capacity improvements identified at $2.6 billion. Costs have gone up, but the revenue picture remains the same. Based on the plan amendment, over 34 percent of total needs, or nearly $3.8 billion in costs will remain unfunded in the present plan. Therefore, the problem is nearly overwhelming and funding is urgently needed. Debate and discussion continues over a number of transportation - related topics, including: A) the form of governance regarding any regional transportation authority, B) reform of PAG, C) different transportation plans to implement, whether they are orientated towards transit or mixed with highway improvements and transit, and D) financing alternatives or sources, and many more topics. This discussion is academic unless there is a revenue source to make an acceptable plan for regional transportation real. Our regional transportation plans have been comprehensive, complex, and the revenue shortfalls so large that crafting a publicly accepted transportation plan that really works has been nearly impossible. Funding Options In my memorandum to the Board dated November 14, 2003, 1 proposed that the Board seek legislation to allow, by majority vote, imposition of a half -cent sales tax to raise approximately $55 million per year when first implemented. This will not circumvent the electorate as a countywide vote approving an override of the County's constitutional expenditure limit to spend these dollars is legally required. This is the simplest and most direct method of raising capital to meet transportation capacity needs of the Regional Transportation Plan. My proposal would distribute the revenues to each jurisdiction based on population, and assumes funds will be used to meet the transportation capacity needs within each jurisdiction as identified by the Regional Plan. This proposal utilizes all of the existing political, governmental, and administrative systems already in place for transportation planning, construction and maintenance, and therefore avoids costly and inefficient duplication. It also does not require establishment of a novel governmental structure that may or may not ultimately produce the results or operate in the manner envisioned by the community. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 5 Given the numerous times a sales tax has been defeated at the polls, others have suggested perhaps a local gas tax or other revenue sources to meet our transportation capacity needs. The following is a discussion of two other options for raising significant new capital for transportation improvements, one being a local gas tax and another being a local real estate transfer tax. A gas tax increase of approximately 10 cents per gallon would equate to the amount of revenues raised by a one -half cent excise tax, and a one -half cent real estate transfer tax would also raise approximately the same amount of money as proposed through a one -half cent excise or sales tax. A. Local Gas Tax - The option of a local, countywide gas tax to fund roads has been discussed for many years and generally has received considerable support. A strong, logical argument exists connecting the sale of fuel to funding of our highway system. This alternative presents two problems, however, that make implementation highly improbable. First, based on gallons of gas and diesel fuel sold in Pima County in fiscal year 2002/03, it would require a local levy of over ten cents per gallon to equal the amount that would be raised by a one -half cent sales tax. The volume of fuel sales is so much less than the sales tax base that the necessary percentage increase in the cost of fuel would be unlikely to receive legislative support. This projection also does not take into account inevitable future decreases in fuel sales in the County resulting from non - residents traversing the County or residents that are, as a practical matter, able to purchase their fuel outside the County to avoid the local tax. Second, the current fuel taxes imposed statewide are not accounted for or collected at the retail level. Fuel is taxed as it enters the state, not at the pump. Retail stations do not have the technological and other infrastructure in place and the state does not have the administrative infrastructure in place to collect a local gas tax as is the case with the sales tax. Consequently, the public and private cost to implement the tax would be considerable and generate opposition. - The state gas tax, a portion of which is received by local governments, has not been increased in about twenty years and is on a flat, cents per gallon basis rather than an indexed, percentage basis. The State Legislature should have addressed these deficiencies long ago. Because they did not, however, Maricopa County has funded and intends to continue to fund transportation needs with a sales tax. As Maricopa has about two - thirds of the residents of Arizona and therefore a majority of Arizona's Legislators, there is a lack of political necessity to increase the statewide gas tax levy. Despite the logic of and justification for taxing fuel for roads, such an increase may be a very long time in coming. B. Local Real Estate Transfer Tax - A significant contributor to regional road needs is real estate development including subdivisions, lots splits and the commercial service and retail developments that meet the needs of population growth. Currently, the only cost imposed by government on the transfer /sale of real estate, no matter how large or valuable, is a nine dollar recording fee at the County Recorder's Office. A strong argument can be made that a real estate transfer tax, essentially a sales tax on the sale of real property, is logical and justified to support regional highway needs. Arizona is one of only fourteen states that does not have such a tax. This tax has the advantage that the burden can be partially exported. Purchases by the increasing number of seasonal residents would be taxed as would transactions made by The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 6 those moving to the County. Further, the tax can be made progressive by taxing high value real estate transfers at a higher rate and exempting transfers of lower valued, affordable real estate purchases. An August 29, 2003 report prepared by Governor Napolitano's Citizen Finance Review Commission concluded that a real estate tax was justified, equitable, simple and very inexpensive to administer. For the Commission report cited above, data was compiled from Maricopa County in order to develop statewide revenue projections. Extrapolating that data for Pima County and using a simple, non - progressive model to apply the levy, roughly a one -half cent real estate sales tax would raise the same amount as a one -half cent increase in the existing sales tax. It seems unlikely, however, that the State legislature would authorize such a tax in lieu of an increase in the existing sales tax given the novelty of the proposal in Arizona and the numerous special interests that would likely oppose it. Given the previous discussion about the alternative revenue sources available to fund new transportation capacity, it remains fairly obvious that an excise tax remains the best option available unless the State Legislature is prepared to increase gas taxes throughout the state by 20 cents per gallon by a direct vote of the Legislature (10 cents would go to the state and 10 cents to municipalities and counties). I would still prefer a gas tax to fund transportation capacity improvements, but such has almost no probability of occurring. Excise Tax Rates Throughout the State One of the arguments against an excise tax is that the rate at 7.6 percent of sales (combined city and state rates) is already too high. Well, everything is relative and the best determination of whether or not an additional 0.5 percent is achievable is to compare an excise tax rate of 8.1 percent with other counties and municipal jurisdictions. A resident of Maricopa County living in the City of Phoenix today pays a sales tax of 8.1 percent; one living in Cave Creek pays 8.8 percent. A resident of the City of Casa Grande living in Pinal County with a 1 percent sales tax pays a combined sales tax of 8.4 percent. In our most rural, smallest county of Graham County, the combined City of Safford, state and county sales tax is 8.1 percent. In Yuma County a resident living in the City of Yuma pays 8.8 percent. In Coconino County, a resident living in Sedona pays 9.53 percent. Clearly an additional half cent sales tax for transportation will not make our sales tax anywhere near the highest in Arizona. Highway Versus Transit Capacity Needs This region has and continues to travel predominately by single passenger vehicles. According to PAG's report on roadway system performance from 1995 to 2000, daily vehicle miles of travel in the region increased 13.5 percent, but capacity based on lane miles of new highways added increased by only 1 .1 percent. Congestion growth is far outpacing new transportation capacity. By the year 2025, PAG projects that daily vehicle hours of travel will increase by 134 percent over 2000. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 7 By typical weekday person trips by mode, the projected change from 2000 to 2025 is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Typical Weekday Person Trips by Mode of Travel 2000 2025 Numeric Change Percent Change Automobile 3,283,944 5,619,076 2,335,132 71 Transit 57,880 95,812 37,932 66 Bike 49,394. 126,820 77,426 157 Walk 262,170 430,614 168,444 64 School Bus 83,590 152,480 68,890 82 Total 3,736,978 6,424,802 2,687,824 72 Based on this table, the growth in automobile trips over the next 20 -plus years is 62 times greater than the growth in transit trips (2,335,132 automobile trips versus 37,932 transit trips). While we need to be concerned about transit system expansion, it must be placed in an appropriate perspective. Individual vehicle trips continue to be the mode of travel choice by the average voter; therefore, any voter authorized funding mechanism must recognize this reality. I have proposed an excise tax with the revenues devoted to new transportation capacity. The revenues would essentially be given to the jurisdictions in accordance with their population. It is certainly possible that a jurisdiction could spend a portion of the new excise tax on transit, however, they should realize the relationship I have pointed out regarding growth in vehicle versus transit trips. Who Are the Beneficiaries of New Transportation Capacity Provided by an Excise Tax Benefitting the local economy should play a major role in our decision about enacting an excise tax and providing transportation capacity improvements that benefit system users, consumers and business. The recently adopted PAG Regional Transportation Plan Amendment indicates that regional vehicle hours of travel during the typical weekday will increase 134 percent from 487,098 hours per day in 2000 to 1,139,975 in 2025. However, the population will only increase 65 percent from 843,746 in 2000 to approximately 1,400,000 in 2025. Travel time will increase twice as fast as population, and much of this increase will be from congestion. While an excise tax will increase consumer costs, it is anticipated that reducing the growth in travel time cited previously will significantly reduce system user costs. An actual cost savings will result for both users, who will largely pay the tax, as well as consumers who will purchase products that have as a component of cost the business cost of congestion. If businesses pay less in goods and services, assembly, production, and delivery, it follows that purchase costs will be lower; hence more efficient transportation is good for both business and the consumer. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 8 Will the Voters Get to Decide? One of the adverse comments about my proposal for a Board majority vote to enact an excise tax dedicated to transportation is that it will thwart the will of the voters. As I have stated numerous times, as far back as 1997 when an unrestricted, General Fund excise tax was considered by the Board, a County expenditure limit override election will be necessary in order to spend the proceeds from an excise tax. What passing the tax by a majority vote does is take off the table for debate the funding mechanism. Since an excise tax is the only practical method of raising significant revenues for transportation, as demonstrated in a previous section, it is not productive to continue to debate the revenue source. What will remain for voter approval is essentially the actual plan for spending the money. If the plan is unacceptable and the expenditure limit retained by the voters, I assume the Board majority enacting the excise tax would do so only conditioned on the improvements being approved by the voters. Hence, no voter approval of the plan, no tax. Therefore, tax enactment and collection would depend entirely on voter acceptance of a plan. The voters still decide and are in control. What is Needed In order to meet the mobility needs of a growing population, and to be successful in planning, implementing and financing needed transportation capacity improvements, the following are needed: • Funding - Reliable, consistent funding over a sustained period of at least 20 years. • Concentrate on Transportation Capacity Improvements - New revenues should not be used to operate or maintain the existing system. • Transportation Plan - We need a transportation plan that has the proper and correct mix of transportation capacity investment by mode, a plan that will actually improve mobility and can be implemented. • Sustainable Plan Past plans have not had any long -term stability, and because of the number of unsuccessful elections related to the various plans offered, any public support. • Recognize Travel Reality - The plan needs to provide a consistent approach about the division of transportation capacity that will be accommodated by transit and the components of transit, including potential light rail, and accommodation of vehicular travel, which will continue to be and remain the dominant mode of transportation for the foreseeable future. A plan that over- emphasizes one mode or another, trying to induce a completely different lifestyle, is not realistic and, again, will not be accepted by the public. • Coordination Among Jurisdictions - There needs to be real coordination between jurisdictions such that improvements on routes that pass through different jurisdictions are consistent, timed correctly and followed through. It is of little benefit to improve a roadway in the County only to bottleneck at the City limits. The Honorable Chair and Members, Pima County Board of Supervisors Transportation Financing and Regional Implementation December 1, 2003 Page 9 • Sustained Jurisdictional Agreement on the Priority Location, and Magnitude of Transportation Capacity Improvements - The fact that grade separations appear in one plan and are taken out of another really does not do much to develop a consistent approach to solving our transportation problems. We need to come to closure on how the system is going to look for the next 20 to 50 years and consistently and, if necessary, incrementally, make transportation capacity improvements to achieve the long -term plan. • Accountability - Should remain with local elected officials. What is Not Needed The following would seem to be particularly unproductive: • The invention of a new gimmick to try to trick or fool the public into a positive vote on either a revenue source or the plan; • The belief that we will find some magic technological bullet to get us out of the basic problem of providing transportation capacity; • A whole new level or system of government to do what our existing governments should be doing and have the obligation and responsibility to do. CHH /jj __ ARIZONA TAX RESEARCH ASSOCIATION State and Local Retail Sales Tax Rates by City RCS 3C. November, 2003 County f Total u. o City Rate Cities by County State ° 1°= City Rate Cities by County State v O , _ $D Apache County _ -: %' - Maricopa County Eagar 5.60 0.50 - - - 3.00 9.10 Queen Creek 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - 2.00 8.30 SL Johns 5.60 0.50 - - - - 2.00 8.10 Scottsdale 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - 1.40 7.70 SL Johns 5.60 0.50 - - - - 3.00 9.10 Surprise 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 2.00 8.30 ,SD Cochise County Tempe 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - 1.80 8.10 1. Benson 5.60 0.50 - - - - 2.50 8.60 Tolleson 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 2.00 8.30 Bisbee 5.60 0.50 - - - - 2.50 8.60 Wickenburg 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.70 8.00 - - - 2.50 8.60 Youngtown 5.60 - . 0.50 0.20 - 2.00 8.30 Douglas 5.60 0.50 ZS Huachuca City 5.60 0.50 - - - - 1.50 7.60 Mohave County - - - - 1.60 7.70 Bullhead City 5.60 0.25 2.00 7.85 Sierra Vista 5.60 0.50 - - _ - 2 7,85 Tombstone 5.60 0.50 - - - 2.50 8.60 Colorado City 5.60 0.25 - 3.00 9.10 1Gngman 5.60 0.25 - - - 2.00 7.85 Willcox 5.60 0.50 - - - - _ - 2.00 7.85 9 Coconino County Lake Havasu City 5.60 0.25 - - ♦ Sn Flagstaff 5.60 0.50 - 0.30 0.125 - 1.601 8.126 Navajo County _ _ 3 9.10 Fredonia . 5.60 0.50 - 0.30 0.125 - 2.00 8.53 Holbrook 5.60 0.50 - - - 2 g.60 Page 5.60 0.50 - 0.30 0.125 3.00 9.53 Pinetop - Lakeside 5.60 0.50 - - 200 8.10 Sedona 5.60 0.50 - 0.30 0.125 - 3.00 9.53 Show Low 5.60 0.50 - 200 B.10 Williams 5.60 0.50 - 0.30 0.125 - 3.00 9.53 Snowflake 5.60 0.50 - - - / Gila County - Taylor 5.60 0.50 - - - 2.00 8.10 1.50 8.10 Winslow 5.60 0.50 - - 3.00 9.10 Globe 5.60 0.50 0.50 - -0 - Hayden 5.60 0.500-50 - 1.00 7.60 Pima County - - - - 2.00 7.60 Miami 5.60 0.50 0.50 - 2.50 9.10 Marana 5.60 _ 2,00 7.60 Payson 5.60 0.50 0.50 - - 2.00 8.60 Oro Valley 5.60 - - - - _ 3.50 10.10 Sahuarita 5.60 2.00 7.60 Winkelman 5.60 0.50 0.50 - South Tucson 5.60 - - - - - 2.50 8.10 ,SQ Graham County _ _ _ _ - 2.00 7.60 Puna 5.60 0.50 - - - - 2.00 8.10 Tucson 5.60 /' Safford 5.60 0.50 - 2.00 8.10 Pinal County - - - _ 2 • Thatcher 5.60 0.50 - - 2.00 8.10 Apache Junction 5.60 0.50 0.50 - _ - .20 8.80 Casa Grande 5.60 0.50 0.50 - - 1.80 8.40 E SQ Greenlee County _ - 2.00 8.60 Clifton 5.60 0.50 - - - - 2.00 8.10 Coolidge 5.60 0.50 0.50 - 2.00 8.10 Eloy 5.60 0.50 0.50 - - - 3.00 9.60 Duncan 5.60 0.50 - - - - _ _ 2.00 8.60 1 ® � ` 2. La Paz County - Florence � 5.60 0.50 0.50 - - 2.00 8.60 Parker 5.60 0.50 - 0.50 0.112 2.00 8.71 Kearny 5.60 0.500-50 - - 2.00 8.60 Quartzsite 5.60 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.112 2.50 9.21 Mammoth 5.60 0.50 0.50 - - - 2.00 8.60 7lI Maricopa County Superior 5.60 0.50 0.50 - - - _ 3.50 10.10 � Apache Junction 5.60 0.50 0.20 _ - 2.20 8.50 Winkelman 5.60 0.50 0.50 Avondale` 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 2.50 8.80 Santa Cruz County 1.25 7,35 Buckeye 5.60 • 0.50 0.20 - 2.00 8.30 Nogales 5.60 0.50 . - • - 3 pp 9.10 Carefree 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 2.00 8.30 Patagonia 4 5.60 0.50 , 7s Cave Creek 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - . 2.50 8.80 Yavapai County - Chandler 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.50 7.80 Camp Verde 5.60 0.50 - 0.25 2.00 8.35 - - - EI Mirage 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 3.00 9.30 Chino Valley 5.60 0.50 - 0.25 - 2.00 8.35 Fountain Hills 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 2.60 8.90 Clarkdale 5.60 0.50 - 0.25 - 2.25 8.60 Gila Send 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 3.00 9.30 Cottonwood 5.60 0.50 - 0.25 - 3.00 9.35 2.20 8.55 Gilbert 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.50 7.80 Jerome 5.60 0.50 - 0.25 - - 2.00 8.35 Glendale 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.80 8.10 Prescott 5.60 O.SD - 0.25 Goodyear 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 2.00 8.30 Prescott Valley 5.60 0.50 0.25 • - 2.33 8.68 Guadalupe 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 3.00 9.30 Sedona 5.60 0.50 0.25 3.00 9.35 A sV Litchfield Park 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 2.00 8.30 Yuma County - 2.50 9.60 ` Mesa 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.50 7.80 San Luis 5.60 0.50 - 0.50 0.50 - `raadise Valley 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - - 1.40 7.70 Somerton 5.60 `'0.50 - 0.50 0.50 2.50 9.60 Peoria 5.60 . - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.50 7.80 Wellton 5.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.50 9.60 Phoenix 5.60 - 0.50 0.20 - - 1.80 8.10 Yuma 5.60 0.50 - 0.50 0.50 1 -- 8.80 The tax rate for the city of Avondale is 2.0% through December, 2003. The rate of 2.5% is effective beginning January 1, 2004. ' Sources: League of Arizona Cities 8 Towns; Arizona Department of Revenue gf � yy: c EXHIBIT D �YY� Comparison of Transportation Fees from New Development Existing Fees for a New $178,000 Home: Pima County $3,500 (2/04) Development Impact Fee Marana $5,906 4% Construction Sales Tax, Impact Fee Oro Valley $2,008 Development Impact Fee City of Tucson $0 No Fees Adopted Sahuarita $2,314 3% Construction Sales Tax Had the City of Tucson adopted/committed to fees similar to those of Marana, they would have generated in excess of $14 million dollars for 2003, just on new home sales, with substantial additional revenues coming from other construction activities such as remodels, additions, pools, commercial improvements, etc.