1

Tucson Advisory Group (TAG)

Facts, not Politics

Contact Craig J. Cantoni

craigcantoni@gmail.com or ccan2@aol.com

Policy Paper 1:
Seven Key Issues Facing Metro Tucson
March 18, 2019

Purpose and Background

This paper summarizes in broad terms why the City of Tucson and the surrounding metropolis
are underperforming economically and have been largely bypassed by high-paying businesses.
This has resulted in the city having a poverty rate that is double the national average, in college
graduates and other talented young people moving elsewhere for opportunities, and in much
of the metropolis having a tired, rundown appearance that gives the wrong impression to
prospective employers.

This situation exists in spite of Tucsonans being nice people and in spite of the metro area’s
beautiful natural setting, great climate, many recreational and cultural attractions, affordable
housing, and a livable, human scale compared to such huge, soulless megapolises as Phoenix
and Los Angeles.

The good news is that improvements are happening, thanks to the hard work and civic-
mindedness of community and business organizations, such as the Downtown Tucson
Partnership, the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic
Chamber, and scores of others. Additionally, there are many churches and charities that help
the poor and homeless, as well as many good people in the public sector and law enforcement
who do the best they can do under challenging circumstances. Kudos to all.

Still, the metropolis is suffering from some fundamental and longstanding issues, which are
summarized below and shown statistically in the tables in the addendum. Future position
papers will drill down into details and offer additional ideas for policy makers, community and
business leaders, and media.

Seven Key Issues Facing the Metropolis

First, it should be noted that the Tucson Advisory Group (TAG) is nonpartisan and has no
financial interests in what it addresses. As such, it can criticize politicians, local governments,
non-governmental organizations, and special interests when criticism is deserved, regardless of
party affiliation or ideology, without worrying about losing business or other repercussions. To
wit:
 2

Issue One: The Low-Income Trap

The City of Tucson is caught in a low-income trap. Although it has a high sales tax, it also has a
high percentage of people below the poverty line. Consequently, it has less sales tax revenue
than it would if the population were wealthier, because the wealthy purchase higher-priced
goods. (For a comparison of tax rates between cities, counties and states, see the addendum.)

At the same time, the city (and county) is suffering from decades of deferred maintenance of
roads, parks and other infrastructure. City voters recently approved a sales tax increase to start
to turn this around, but if taxes increase much more, the city will become uncompetitive and
lose business to lower-tax locales.

Of course, there is a relationship between poverty and crime, which in turn requires extra
spending on law enforcement and results in businesses and residences installing security bars
on doors and windows and investing in other security measures.

Given this low-income trap, it is essential that the city be very careful in prioritizing
expenditures and in having productive and efficient operations, as it doesn’t have the luxury of
throwing money at problems like wealthier communities do. This requires excellence in not
only leadership but also public employees who are willing to go the extra mile when they are
already feeling beleaguered.

Little things matter in this regard. For example, if a city worker or supervisor sees an illegal sign
or debris in a median or shoulder of a public right-of-way, the employee should stop and
remove it instead of driving by in a city vehicle, whatever department the individual is assigned
to. Or after damaged cars are removed from an auto accident on a city street, employees on
the scene should pick up the remaining debris and sweep up the glass instead of leaving it
behind to send a message that the city doesn’t care. Or if a city contractor finishes road work,
the company should pick up barricades, safety cones and sandbags instead of leaving them in
the weeds by the roadside.

These are leadership and management issues, not an issue of a lack of money.

A city that can’t take care of the basics is a city that will be left behind.

Issue Two: First Impressions

There is no nice way to say this: The city and much of the surrounding county don’t look good
at first blush. There is too much haphazard development, too much litter, too many weeds and
too much debris in public rights-of-way, too much trash along the Loop bike/walk path in
washes and the Rillito River, too many ill-kempt commercial and residential properties, and too
many homemade signs and realtor signs in medians and roadsides.
 3

Like it or not, this matters to the people who matter when it comes to deciding where to locate
high-wage businesses. And it matters to younger professionals when deciding where to live.
They may care about the poor, social justice and diversity, but at the same time they want to
live in hip urban areas that have an air of prosperity. Call them elite, hoity-toity, the one
percent, hypocrites, or whatever; but labeling them changes nothing. Besides, residents of the
metropolis deserve better and should demand better, if for no other reason than personal
pride and civic pride.

There is a double-irony here. First, circa 1975, when Tucson had the potential to be a
prosperous metropolis, an anti-growth and anti-business movement took hold, because of an
understandable fear of becoming another sprawling Phoenix. Second, many Tucsonans have an
admirable love of natural beauty and an aversion to tacky development. But the metropolis
ended up with the worst kind of development and sprawl.

There isn’t much that can be done in the short term about the miles and miles of arterial streets
that were built decades ago with minimum setbacks for buildings, with little landscaping, with
no bus pullouts or sidewalks, and with weak zoning, sign ordinances and building codes—all of
which resulted in the proliferation of tacky signs, strip malls, and ugly buildings. It will take
special redevelopment districts and revitalization investments to turn this around over time,
being careful not to override neighborhood concerns, or violate property rights, or engage in
ivory-tower central planning. It’s also important not to turn the City of Tucson into a jelly
doughnut; that is a city with a sweet center of a revitalized downtown surrounded by decaying
neighborhoods and shabby outer rings.

This isn’t just a city problem. After all, it is not as if Oracle Rd. from the city limit to Oro Valley is
going to win a beautification award. And it’s not as if high-end resorts and retail establishments
keep their frontages clean and attractive. There is a cultural norm here that says it’s okay to be
a bad neighbor. Whole Foods is an example. For months, it had a 30-foot long banner on the
public right-of-way in front of its store at Oracle and Ina, but, tellingly, the chain doesn’t do this
at its Scottsdale stores. And the largest residential realty company in town—which is now
owned by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway—refuses to stop its realtors from sticking those
ubiquitous, garish, one-foot by two-feet plastic signs along public rights-of-way, in clear
violation of city and county sign ordinances. The company defends this practice with the
argument that because all real estate companies do this, they would be at a competitive
disadvantage if they didn’t do it.

They have a point. There is a signage arms race in the Tucson area, including legal signs. But
like all arms races, everyone loses. Just drive east from I-10 along Speedway or Grant or
Broadway and see what the arms race gets you. Does anyone think this is good for business?
And it’s all unnecessary, since a proliferation of ugly signs is an anachronism in the era of
smartphones, which not only tell you what businesses are nearby but give you directions on
how to get to them and what their hours of operation are. (The same with homes for sale and
open houses.)
 4

It would take political courage and thinking out of the box to stop this arms race. Sao Paulo,
Brazil, of all places, has done just that. One of the poorest cities in the hemisphere, it has
implemented one of the toughest sign ordinances in the hemisphere. Contrary to the initial
doomsayers, this has helped, not hurt business. Look it up on the Internet and see the “before”
and “after” photos (https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-
uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/). Then imagine what the Old Pueblo would look like if it
did something similar. Tucson would immediately be on the map as an innovative city and on
the radar of prospective high-wage businesses.

In the meantime, much can be done to clean up the metropolis without spending a lot of
money. A campaign of “Don’t trash Tucson” could be initiated to make metro Tucson the
cleanest metropolis in America. Community groups, neighborhood associations, schools,
churches, businesses, news media, and individual volunteers could be marshalled to help out,
with local government providing some financial, organizational and marketing assistance.

Likewise, property owners should be encouraged to keep their frontages clean and attractive,
or be fined if they don’t. Realtors and other businesses should be encouraged to stop violating
sign ordinances, or be fined if they don’t. And residential property maintenance ordinances
should be strengthened and enforced. This might be unpopular in some quarters, but it would
undoubtedly improve the quality of life and economic vitality for all.

Issue Three: The County Kingdom

Pima County is over 9,000 square miles, with the Tucson metropolitan area occupying only a
relatively small area in the northeastern corner of the county. Most of the county is agriculture
and ranches.

Unincorporated parts of Pima County account for 36% of the Tucson metropolitan area. By
comparison, unincorporated parts of Maricopa County make up only 6% of the Phoenix
metropolitan area.

Pima County is trying to be something it can’t be in heavily populated areas: It’s trying to be a
municipality instead of a county. But it can’t provide the city services, amenities and
responsiveness desired by suburban and urban residents, even if the county were the epitome
of efficiency and good management, which, as it has proven, is certainly not. The needs of
urbanites and suburbanites are markedly different from the needs of, let’s say, ranchers in Cow
Lick, Arizona, in central Pima County. County supervisors and the county manager would have
to be superhuman to strike the right balance between these differing needs.

County residents are stuck in a conundrum. Most don’t want to be incorporated, because they
don’t want to pay for another level of government and fear being annexed by Tucson, which,
they feel, would try to stick them with the bill for fixing the city’s self-inflicted problems. But
they are never going to get the roads and services they deserve if they remain unincorporated.
 5

The issue is further complicated by much of the affected county being covered by incorporation
laws that require neighboring municipalities to vote their approval for any new municipality at
their border. It would be shortsighted to vote against such incorporation, but it’s very difficult
for voters to know all the facts given the misinformation and emotions that swirl around the
subject.

Speaking of which, the county has been less than forthcoming about the benefits of
incorporation. It has said that residents would lose county money and pay additional taxes if
they incorporated, but it has conveniently been silent about, or downplayed, the additional
revenue they would gain. (See addendum for statistics on what the county government costs.)

Issue Four: One-Party Government

The vast majority of the residents of the Tucson metropolis live in either the City of Tucson or
unincorporated Pima County, both of which have been controlled for decades by one political
party, the Democrats. It matters not to TAG which party runs things, even if it were a party
named the Green Martian Party. But it does matter if the controlling party has left a legacy of
poverty, decaying infrastructure, and general shabbiness.

One-party control of the City of Tucson is virtually locked in by the voting system of ward
primaries and city-wide elections, a system that has been upheld by the courts. At the same
time, there is a natural Democrat constituency in the city (and county), due to 12 of the top 15
employers being either public-sector agencies or private-sector companies dependent on
government funding (see addendum for a list).

This lack of political competition, like all monopolies, results in complacency, a lack of
accountability, and a dearth of new ideas. It also has caused Republicans, Independents and
Libertarians to feel powerless to change anything and to mistrust city and county governments,
even in those cases where they are doing the right thing. This exacerbates and amplifies the
political divisiveness that is seen at the national level.

As discussed below, another drawback is that there is little competition between municipalities,
because there are so few of them, unlike the 17 or so municipalities in Maricopa County.

Issue 5: Inter-Governmental Competition and Cooperation

Competition between municipalities would be a good thing, but so would cooperation between
municipalities. The Tucson metropolis strikes out on both accounts. As mentioned above,
there are few municipalities. At the same time, there also is little cooperation between the
ones that exist on issues affecting the entire metropolis. There is a Regional Transportation
Authority, but this doesn’t come close to the reach, financing, and planning of the Maricopa
Association of Governments in metro Phoenix (see addendum for more on this).
 6

It’s tempting for wealthy people and retirees to think that they can retreat to an isolated
enclave such as Dove Mountain and be insulated from what happens in the rest of the
metropolis. However, the economic vitality of the constituent parts depends on the economic
vitality of the whole. The suburbs need the attractions that a thriving center city brings; thus,
they should support the revitalization of the City of Tucson. And the city needs the political and
financial support of the suburbs, but without resorting to coercive and confiscatory measures.

Once again, leadership is key. Leaders are needed who are willing to share power and stop
behaving like lords of political fiefdoms.

Issue 6: Immigration

TAG is not interested in getting in the middle of the raging debate in America about
immigration and the wall, other than to say that we are pro-immigration and think that
Tucson’s Hispanic history and culture are plusses with big payoffs in future years. We also
understand the sentiments of those who want to help emigrants from poor countries by
making Tucson a de facto sanctuary city. But the economic fact is that Tucson can ill-afford
more poor people settling in the city. Besides, there are far wealthier cities in the country that
could be doing more in this regard. To this point, demographic comparisons between Tucson
and other cities can be found in the addendum, but let’s look at one comparison now—that
between Tucson and Seattle, where the likes of Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon are
headquartered.

The City of Tucson’s poverty rate is double that of Seattle’s, and its per-capita income is less
than half of Seattle’s. For residents 25 years and older, 26.6% have a college degree in Tucson,
versus 63.1% in Seattle. And 42.9% of Tucsonans are Latino, versus 6.6% in Seattle. Income
disparities are even greater between Tucson and Arlington County, Virginia, where Amazon is
establishing its second headquarters. These communities and similar ones espouse diversity
and say they support immigration but are not doing their fair share. Talk is cheap.

Issue 7: K-12 Schools

It’s not profound to say that the Tucson Unified School District is underperforming and is a
major reason for wealthy people not wanting to move to the city. This is another hot-button
problem that TAG is not going to get in the middle of, other than to say it has to be fixed and
would be fixed if large numbers of wealthy people moved to the city, as they wouldn’t tolerate
substandard schools. It’s a chicken or egg problem. What comes first? Fixing the schools in
order to attract wealthy residents, or attracting wealthy residents to fix the schools?

At the risk of being lambasted by the public-school establishment, TAG is of the opinion that it
will not help TUSD to try to shut down the Basis schools or other charter schools. All this would
accomplish is to push the well-off out of the city entirely. It’s better for the district to keep as
many wealthy people in the district as possible, even if they send their kids to non-district
schools, as this gives them a stake in the community and increases property tax revenue for the
 7

district. Over time, the wealthy will do what they do wherever they live: demand excellent
neighborhood schools.

The addendum follows.

 8

Addendum to Policy Paper 1

Tucson Metropolis Vs. Other Locales

Poverty, Income and Other Demographics (2017 – 2018)

Population % in Per-Capita Median %
Poverty Income Household Bachelor’s
Income or Higher
Tucson 535,677 24.1 $21,684 $39,617 26.6
Phoenix 1,626,078 20.91 $26,528 $52,080 27.8

El Paso 683,577 20.3 $19,950 $42,244 22.2

San Antonio 1,511,946 18.6 $24,325 $49,711 25.7
Albuquerque 558,545 18.2 $28,229 $49,878 34.3

Pima County 1,022,769 16.6 $27,523 $48,676 31.6

Maricopa 4,307,033 13.5 $30,186 $58,580 31.4
County

USA 328,000,000 12.7 $33,025 $52,080 33.0

Redmond, 64,291 6.0% $56,356 $115,300 68.6

Wash.
Seattle 724,745 12.5 $55,276 $86,822 63.1
Mt. View, CA 81,438 7.9 $67,739 $121,533 66.9
Arlington 234,965 5.7 $67,061 $112,138 74.1
County, VA
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, World Population Review, CityData.com, as of 2017 or 2018

Key Findings

 Tucson has the highest poverty rate of the selected cities.

 Tucson’s poverty rate is almost twice the national average.
 Tucson has the lowest median household income of the selected cities.
 Tucson’s median household income is 23.9% lower than the national average
 Tucson’s median household income is 23.9% lower than Phoenix’s.
 Pima County’s median household income is 16.9% lower than Maricopa County’s.
 26.6% of Tucsonans 25 years or older have a bachelor’s degree or higher, versus 27.8%
of Phoenicians and 33% of all Americans.
 Seattle, the home of Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks and other big companies, has a
median household income that is more than double that of Tucson.
 Mt. View, which is representative of Silicon Valley, has a median household income that
is more than three times that of Tucson.
 9

 Arlington County, Virginia, a D.C. suburb where Amazon is establishing a second

headquarters, has a median household income that is 2.8 times that of Tucson.

Other Demographics for City of Tucson

 Poverty rate without high school degree = 33.8%; with high school degree = 21.11%
 Latino high school graduation rate = 74%; white rate = 94%
 Median household income married families = $64,755; all households = $39,617
 Median age 33.4, versus 38.1 for USA
 Home ownership 49.3%, versus 63.8% for USA
 Foreign born = 15.07%; non-citizens = 8.72%; Mexican ethnicity = 36.1%

Sales Tax Rates in Pima County

Sales Tax (Transaction Privilege Tax)
Sales Tax Rate for: State Tax County Tax City Tax Total
Rate Rate Rate

Tucson 5.6 cents 0.5 cents 2.5 cents* 8.6 cents

Marana 5.6 cents 0.5 cents 2.5 cents 8.6 cents

Oro Valley 5.6 cents 0.5 cents 2.5 cents 8.6 cents

South Tucson 5.6 cents 0.5 cents 4.5 cents 10.6

cents

Sahuarita 5.6 cents 0.5 cents 2.0 cents 8.1 cents

Unincorporated Pima 5.6 cents 0.5 cents n/a 6.1 cents

County
*As the result of a Special Election held on May 16, 2017, City of Tucson Mayor and
Council adopted Resolution No. 22760, to authorize a voter approved five year
temporary half-cent sales tax increase to fund improvements for roads and public
safety. This raised the rate of 2 cents to 2.5 cents. This went into effect July 1, 2017,
and will expire on June 30, 2022.

Sources:
City of Tucson Tax Rate Increase Flyer:
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/finance/Revenue/Tax_Rate_Increase_Flyer_070117.pdf
Arizona Department of Revenue Transaction Privilege Tax Rates and Deduction Codes:
https://www.azdor.gov/TransactionPrivilegeTax(TPT)/RatesandDeductionCodes/Tucson
.aspx
 10

Maricopa County Sales Tax by City, Effective June 2017

AZ State Sales County Sales City Sales Total Sales

Tax Tax Tax Tax
Maricopa
% % % %
County
Apache Junction 5.6 0.7 2.40 8.7
Avondale 5.6 0.7 2.50 8.8
Buckeye 5.6 0.7 3.00 9.3
Carefree 5.6 0.7 3.00 9.3
Cave Creek 5.6 0.7 3.00 9.3
Chandler 5.6 0.7 1.50 7.8
El Mirage 5.6 0.7 3.00 9.3
Fountain Hills 5.6 0.7 2.60 8.9
Gila Bend 5.6 0.7 3.50 9.8
Gilbert 5.6 0.7 1.50 7.8
Glendale 5.6 0.7 2.90* 9.2
Goodyear 5.6 0.7 2.50 8.8
Guadalupe 5.6 0.7 4.00 10.3
Litchfield Park 5.6 0.7 2.80 9.1
Mesa 5.6 0.7 1.75 8.05
Paradise Valley 5.6 0.7 2.50 8.8
Peoria 5.6 0.7 1.80 8.1
Phoenix 5.6 0.7 2.30 8.6
Queen Creek 5.6 0.7 2.25 8.55
Scottsdale 5.6 0.7 1.65 7.95
Surprise 5.6 0.7 2.20 8.5
Tempe 5.6 0.7 1.80 8.1
Tolleson 5.6 0.7 2.50 8.8
Wickenburg 5.6 0.7 2.20 8.5
Youngtown 5.6 0.7 3.00 9.3

Pinal County
Apache Junction 5.6 1.1 2.20 8.9
Casa Grande 5.6 1.1 2.00 8.7
Florence 5.6 1.1 2.00 8.7
Maricopa 5.6 1.1 2.00 8.7
Queen Creek 5.6 1.1 2.25 8.95
 11

Gila County
Globe 5.6 1.1 2.30 9.0
Miami 5.6 1.1 2.50 9.2

Property Taxes Maricopa County v. Pima County

The median property tax in Maricopa County, Arizona is $1,418 per year for a home worth the
median value of $238,600. Maricopa County collects, on average, 0.59% of a property's
assessed fair market value as property tax.

Arizona is ranked 874th of the 3143 counties in the United States, in order of the median
amount of property taxes collected.

The average yearly property tax paid by Maricopa County residents amounts to about 2.06% of
their yearly income. Maricopa County is ranked 1363rd of the 3143 counties for property taxes
as a percentage of median income.

Pima County collects the highest property tax in Arizona, levying an average of $1,614.00
(0.81% of median home value) yearly in property taxes, while Greenlee County has the lowest
property tax in the state, collecting an average tax of $303.00 (0.46% of median home value)
per year.

Personal Example, Maricopa County v. Pima County

Pima County residence in unincorporated Ventana Canyon bought in May, 2017.

Scottsdale residence sold in August, 2017, for $40,000 more than the purchase price of the
Pima County house.

Property taxes on Scottsdale home = $3,480.

Property taxes on Pima County home = $4,782, or 37% higher

The average cost for water, sewer, trash/recycling pick-up, brush pick-up, and fire department
at the Scottsdale house = $80 per month, or $960 per year. House had a pool and lush
Mediterranean landscaping. Scottsdale streets were maintained in perfect condition, streets
swept monthly, litter was picked up, and tacky signs in medians and along roadways were
quickly removed. General impression was one of good government, civic-mindedness, and
prosperity.

Water and sewer at Pima County house, which has desert landscaping and no pool = $99 per
month, or $1,188 per year. Rural Metro fire = $400 per year. Trash/recycling pick-up paid
through HOA = $200 per year (estimate). Streets are in terrible condition, street sweeping
infrequent or not at all, litter not picked up, tacky signs are left in medians and along roadsides.
 12

General impression is one of incompetent government, lack of civic-mindedness, and lack of

prosperity.

Total annual cost Scottsdale house = $4,440

Total annual cost Pima County house = $6,570, or 50% higher.

Sales tax Scottsdale = 7.95% (some variation)

Sales tax Tucson = 8.6%
Sales tax unincorporated Pima County = 6.1%

Budgets and Staffing Pima County v. Maricopa County

2018 – 2019 Fiscal Year

Pima County Budget: $1.334 billion

Pima County Employees: 6,963
Pima County Population: $1.022 million
Cost of County per Resident: $1,304
Residents per County Employee: 147

Maricopa County Budget: $2.457 billion

Maricopa County Employees: 14,077
Maricopa County Population: 4.307 million
Cost of County per Resident: $571
Residents per County Employee: 306

Pima County Transportation Department Budget: $43.688 million

Transportation Employees: 269
2,200 Miles of Roads (No Distinction Between Paved and Dirt Roads)
Budget Comes to $19,858 per Mile
One Employee for Every 8.2 Miles

Maricopa County Department of Transportation Budget: $203.890 million

Transportation Employees: 400
2,524 Miles of Roads, Including 396 Miles of Dirt Roads
Budget Comes to $80,780 per Mile
One Employee for Every 6.3 Miles

Transportation Spending & Planning: Pima County v. Maricopa County

Reasonable people can have a reasonable debate on whether metro Tucson should replicate
the network of freeways in metro Phoenix and the sprawl that comes with it. But it shouldn't
be debatable that metro Tucson needs to replicate the high degree of regional cooperation in
transportation planning and funding that has existed in Maricopa County for decades, thanks
largely to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), which is comprised of 27 cities and
 13

towns, three Indian communities, Maricopa County, parts of Pinal county, and the Arizona
Department of Transportation.

To get an idea of MAG's scope, funding and professionalism, see MAG's website at the
following link.

www.azmag.gov

And below is a link for MAG's Regional Transportation Plan, updated in 2017 and extending to
2040.

http://www.azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MagContent/2040-regional-tranpsortation-
plan_2017_0927.pdf?ver=2017-10-16-154611-727

Following is an excerpt from the "Funding Sources" section of the transportation plan for the
construction and maintenance of freeways. There is a separate section for the funding of
arterial streets.

"Funding sources shown in Table 9-2 for the freeway/highway element include the half-cent sales tax
($9.7 billion); MAG area ADOT funds ($9.3 billion); Federal Highway Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality
funds ($265 million); ADOT statewide funding ($1.9 billion); other funding ($811 million); bond proceeds
($570 million); and an estimated available beginning cash balance of $584 million. Debt service and other
expenses totaling $2.0 billion are deducted from these sources, yielding a net total of $21.1 billion (YOE
$’s) for use on freeway/highway construction projects and programs. The above revenue sources have
been major funding elements for transportation facilities in the MAG area for decades and are considered
to be reasonably available to the region throughout the planning period."

Also included in the transportation plan are details on the completion of the South Mountain
Freeway, which is the last unfinished leg of the Loop 202. Its cost is $1.9 billion. Funding comes
from Proposition 400, which was passed by voters in 2004.

Another excerpt from the transportation plan is below. It discusses the funding sources for the
$612 million Northern Parkway and includes an interesting pie chart.

The majority of funding for the Northern Parkway (70%) will come from regional sources, primarily
Federal Surface Transportation Program funds (STP) allocated via the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) to the Maricopa County region. The remaining 30% will be borne by the
partners in the following proportions,

 El Mirage — 10%
 Glendale — 40%
 Peoria — 20%
 MCDOT — 30%

Pursuant to the IGA, $315.8 million is budgeted for the Northern Parkway based on the MAG
Regional Transportation Plan. This represents roughly half of the total projected cost of $612.6
million.
 14

The 15 Largest Employers in Southern Arizona

Source: Inside Tucson Business, as of 2015

The 15 employers listed below have a total of nearly 95,000 employees. Eight of the 15 are in
the public sector, and one of the 15, Raytheon, is a private-sector company that is dependent
on government funding and thus taxes. Another three are healthcare companies that are
dependent on Medicare and Medicaid for a large percent of their revenue, perhaps as much as
50%.

Only three of the 15 (Freeport-McMoRan, Wal-Mart, and Fry’s Food Stores) are not dependent
on government funds. The three have just over 13,000 employees, or only 14% of the total of
95,000 employees for the top 15.

On a related note, Craig Cantoni calculated last year that nearly 70% of households nationally
have at least one adult who either works for the government, or receives a government
transfer payment, or holds a private-sector job that exists because of government regulations
(e.g. tax accountants). It's a largely untold story of the American economy.

• The University of Arizona – 12,053 employees

• Raytheon Missile Systems – 11,370 employees

• Davis-Monthan Air Force Base – 10,869 employees

• Pima County – 7,100 employees

• U.S. Border Patrol – 6,800 employees

• Tucson Unified School District – 6,467 employees

• University of Arizona Health Network – 6,462 employees

• Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. – 5,819 employees

• U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence & Fort Huachuca – 5,096 employees

• State of Arizona – 4,986 employees

• Wal-Mart – 4,360 employees

• City of Tucson – 4,348 employees

• Carondelet Health Network – 3,594 employees

• Fry’s Food Stores – 3,109 employees

 15

• Tucson Medical Center (TMC Healthcare) – 2,977 employees

MAJOR MANUFACTURERS (Manufacturers with 300 or more employees)

Raytheon Missile Systems, 9,600 employees (with an additional 2,000 planned)

Ventana Medical Systems, 1,286
Bombardier Aerospace, 984
IBM *, 900
Honeywell Aerospace, 715
Hexcel, 500
Texas Instruments, Inc. *, 370
CAID Industries Inc., 352
Frito-Lay, 325
Sargent Aerospace & Defense, 310

* Employee counts for 2015/16 are based on Star estimates. Source: Star 200 Directory, published by
The Arizona Daily Star (April 24, 2016).

Overall Tax Burden by State (Excludes County & City Sales Taxes)

Property Individual Total Sales

Overall Total Tax
Tax Income Tax & Excise Tax
Rank State Burden
Burden Burden Burden
(1=Highest) (%)
(%) (%) (%)

1 New York 13.04% 4.62% 4.78% 3.64%

2 Hawaii 11.57% 2.20% 2.85% 6.52%
3 Maine 11.02% 4.80% 2.69% 3.53%
4 Vermont 10.94% 5.20% 2.32% 3.42%
5 Minnesota 10.37% 3.00% 3.70% 3.67%
6 Connecticut 10.19% 4.17% 3.34% 2.68%
7 Rhode Island 10.14% 4.70% 2.31% 3.13%
8 Illinois 10.08% 4.11% 2.44% 3.53%
9 New Jersey 10.02% 5.12% 2.46% 2.44%
10 California 9.57% 2.66% 3.65% 3.26%
11 Ohio 9.48% 2.90% 2.71% 3.87%
12 Maryland 9.45% 2.77% 3.92% 2.76%
 16

Property Individual Total Sales

Overall Total Tax
Tax Income Tax & Excise Tax
Rank State Burden
Burden Burden Burden
(1=Highest) (%)
(%) (%) (%)

13 West Virginia 9.40% 2.43% 2.87% 4.10%

14 Iowa 9.32% 3.43% 2.50% 3.39%
14 Mississippi 9.32% 2.80% 1.72% 4.80%
16 Wisconsin 9.26% 3.52% 2.67% 3.07%
17 Nebraska 9.17% 3.83% 2.39% 2.95%
18 Massachusetts 9.03% 3.60% 3.40% 2.03%
19 Arkansas 8.99% 1.79% 2.29% 4.91%
20 New Mexico 8.94% 2.03% 1.75% 5.16%
21 Kentucky 8.79% 2.03% 3.16% 3.60%
22 North Dakota 8.69% 2.20% 1.28% 5.21%
23 Pennsylvania 8.66% 2.98% 2.56% 3.12%
24 Indiana 8.56% 2.33% 2.33% 3.90%
25 Kansas 8.54% 3.07% 1.66% 3.81%
26 Michigan 8.53% 3.21% 2.18% 3.14%
27 Louisiana 8.43% 2.03% 1.49% 4.91%
28 Oregon 8.38% 3.17% 4.10% 1.11%
29 Utah 8.36% 2.46% 2.66% 3.24%
30 North Carolina 8.32% 2.30% 2.70% 3.32%
31 Arizona 8.21% 2.62% 1.39% 4.20%
31 Nevada 8.21% 2.23% 0.00% 5.98%
33 Texas 8.15% 3.70% 0.00% 4.45%
33 Washington 8.15% 2.66% 0.00% 5.49%
35 Colorado 8.10% 2.67% 2.26% 3.17%
36 Georgia 8.09% 2.75% 2.31% 3.03%
37 Wyoming 8.03% 4.17% 0.00% 3.86%
38 Missouri 7.95% 2.34% 2.42% 3.19%
39 South Carolina 7.88% 2.91% 1.97% 3.00%
 17

Property Individual Total Sales

Overall Total Tax
Tax Income Tax & Excise Tax
Rank State Burden
Burden Burden Burden
(1=Highest) (%)
(%) (%) (%)

40 Idaho 7.87% 2.48% 2.30% 3.09%

41 Virginia 7.77% 2.92% 2.73% 2.12%
42 Montana 7.64% 3.55% 2.69% 1.40%
43 Alabama 7.24% 1.41% 1.86% 3.97%
44 South Dakota 7.22% 2.90% 0.00% 4.32%
45 Oklahoma 7.17% 1.54% 1.89% 3.74%
New
46 7.07% 5.60% 0.13% 1.34%
Hampshire
47 Florida 6.64% 2.72% 0.00% 3.92%
48 Tennessee 6.47% 2.05% 0.11% 4.31%
49 Delaware 5.68% 1.82% 2.70% 1.16%
50 Alaska 4.94% 3.54% 0.00% 1.40%