To meet a deadline in state law, the Pima County supervisors are holding a required Monday meeting to adopt the property tax levies and rates.
State law requires the rates be set by the third Monday in August, and they haven’t done that yet, so the supervisors aren’t holding their usual Tuesday meeting. They had to meet last Monday, Aug. 12, to approve the primary election canvass by a state deadline, and then broke for the rest of the day to hold their regular meeting the next day.
This time, because the next Tuesday immediately follows Labor Day weekend, they are going to knock out a full agenda.
The tax rate was basically approved as part of the budget. I did a deeper dive into how the new rate is kind of a tax cut and kind of a tax hike. The primary property tax rate pays for daily county operations and is incresing slightly. The secondary property taxes that pay for voter-approved bonds and special districts are decreasing in the coming fiscal year. The net result is that property owners will pay lower tax rates. (Leaving aside for the moment that their property values may have gone up.)
On the other hand, secondary tax rates are decreasing.
Had supervisors held firm on the primary, taxes would have decreased by more.
On the third hand, voters keep rejecting bonds regardless of the county’s capital needs. Skimp on capital investments, and operations costs will increase over time.
The total tax rate for fiscal year 2024-25 will stand at $5.1413 per $100 of assessed valuation. Last fiscal year the rate was $5.1424 per $100. The new numbers include taxes for the Library District and Fire District Assistance. So the total amount is slightly larger than previously reported.
Remember, the total tax rate includes a bunch of tax rates set by school districts, the community college district, other special districts and the city.
Property owners make payments to the county treasurer for the whole shebang, but that doesn’t mean the supes are responsible.
They’re off
The Louis Taylor case is still costing Pima County money more than 50 years after the Pioneer Hotel caught fire and 29 people died just before Christmas.
Taylor was convicted on 28 counts of murder in 1972 in an arson case tainted with racism and evidence like “Black boys like fires” admitted into court. He was released from prison after 42 years, when he was allowed to change his plea to “no contest” and his sentenced was reduced to time served.
A Superior Court judge put a hold on a civil trial set to begin this summer, pending the outcome of a separate court action to overturn and expunge Taylor’s conviction.
The Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday to add another $100,000 to a long-running contract with Phoenix-area law firm Struck, Love, Bojanowski and Acedo, through August 2025. The outside law firm is representing the county in the case, due to potential conflicts by County Attorney Laura Conover, who lent a hand to Taylor’s appeal before she ran for office.
All parties seem to understand that Taylor’s conviction was problematic. What should be an easy case of “Oops, our bad,” has become a drama beyond the imagination of Shonda Rhimes.
At least a dozen sharks have watched water skis fly over their snouts as lawyers wrangle and hyperventilate over convention and procedure.
I’ve become more and more of an armchair textualist, believing the letter of the law supersedes the intent. Donald Trump broke me of my liberal tendency toward seeking a more dynamic reading of law that asks “I know what the law says, but what does it really mean?”
However, at some point the powers that be need to ask: “Was Taylor’s conviction legit?” If the answer is no, then that “no” should drive all other decisions as the county delouses itself from the case.
In 2013, then-Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall agreed to allow for Taylor’s release with the deal that required him to plead “no contest.” LaWall said there was still enough evidence to support his conviction but released him anyway because fire science has advanced.
A lot of science has advanced and yet people are still in prison convicted for crimes prior to the advancement. Why bring up a finding of fact and not just say “He’s served his time” and be done with it?
Instead it’s like “He’s guilty, but we’re not sure if he’s guilty guilty, so to make things right we’ll shave off part of his sentence.”
No. No. No. No. No, no, no, no, no.
Let the verdict stand unless prosecutors think there was something wrong with it. If there was something wrong with it, don’t give bad lawyers and judges and juries partial credit.
Two years after getting out of prison, Taylor asked that the deal and his conviction be expunged.
Then in 2020, County Attorney Laura Conover was elected after promising justice for Taylor. She ultimately didn’t deliver, publicly stating there wasn’t enough new evidence to clear him.
Again, no. The jury made a mistake that required corrective action.
OK, I thought the whole point of our justice system was that the state had to find enough evidence to convict. The accused doesn’t have to prove innocence.
Taylor’s lawyers say they do have evidence to prove an arson by Taylor didn’t start the fire.
Was it a righteous conviction or not?
The system has been caught up on all sorts of circumstances exigent to that central and all-important question.
It’s been nearly 54 years.
But hey, at least there are billable hours, right? And in practice, that may really be the point of the legal system.
Supervisors will also review the kerfuffle involving the Fair Horse Racing Commission during a closed-door executive session.
Pima County canceled the 2025 racing season after County Administrator Jan Lesher said the procurement process to find a contractor to run the track was “compromised.”
A nonprofit group affiliated with the commission, the Fair Racing Foundation, intended to bid on the contract to run the track. As a member of the commission reportedly had prior knowledge of the request for proposals that the foundation would answer to, that group could have had an inside track toward winning the bid.
Now the supervisors have to figure out how to proceed getting a new operator to get racing back at the track. The county anticipates a legal challenge when the bid is eventually awarded.
There’s also a matter of storm damage done to Rillito Park during recent thunderstorms. Repairs aren’t something the board should be discussing in executive session, away from public eyes and ears.
Heat rules
New heat safety rules to regulate future county contractors are also slated for a vote during the Monday meeting.
The new rules would require a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan of any business doing work with county money.
Infractions would be reported to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the Arizona Division of Occupational Health and Safety.
OSHA has heat rules pending. Until ithe rule is established, reporting
to the feds would be a little like something going on “your “permanent
record.” When (and if) federal regulations take effect, county reporting
would carry more consequences.
The plan would require access to water, shade and cooling as well as time off for breaks.
Pima County conducted public outreach before establishing the new rules.
If approved by the board, the rules will folded into new contracts.
The board will vote on providing a $1 million for a 72-unit
affordable apartment complex near East 22nd Street and South Columbus
Avenue.
The deal defines affordability
as a unit “affordable” for someone earning 60 percent of the area
median income, as determined by the Arizona Department of Housing. A
small problem here is that the state doesn’t have a rent limit listed
for people earning 60 percent of AMI. It does have one for 50 percent
and another for 65 percent. We can extrapolate though by adding 20
percent onto the 50 percent number to get 60 percent.
Do that and come up with $1,206 a month for a two-bedroom and just over $1,000 a month for a one bedroom.
That wouldn’t have seemed at all affordable a few years ago. However, a
failure to build homes since the mortgage crisis and Great Recession
has left the area woefully lacking housing supply.
The
county will get $1.8 million dollars back at the end of the
affordability period, which is when the developer will be locked into
providing low-income rents. That period is 30 years.
Pima County
needs new homes and is basically paying a little less than $14,000
apiece for 72 units and a way to get rent control in Arizona.
Best behavior
The Pima Community College District Governing Board is back from a summer recess and now has to get down to the business of having the institution’s accreditation approved.
Every 10 years, the college goes through this process when the Higher Learning Commission either does or does not provide its blessing.
A consultant, Sandy Veltri, has been hired to double- and triple-check PCC’s readiness for a looming site visit, including holding a mock visit.
The board will discuss the accreditation process during its Monday meeting and that’s about it for that get-together. They’re easing their way back into things.
The last process wasn’t so smooth, so here’s to fair winds for PCC this time around.
In Oro Valley, the Town Council will gather to discuss the process of creating a new 10-year-action planning process.
The town has been conducting its community-involved portion of the endeavor.
Residents have completed 3,016 surveys and visited the town’s planning webpage 16,045 times and the staff has held more than 78 events and presentations.
Getting community buy-in is crucial. The results I could have written on a bar napkin in 2022 without the fuss and muss.
Housing? The town needs more affordable options. Economic development? They want more high-paying jobs. Parks? All for ’em. Environment? Yes. By all means. Growth? Manage it. Traffic? Make it better. Police? Yes, please.
This is fine for starters but the goal should be to determine appetite for certain tradeoffs and priorities. Hopefully that’s coming next.