🏙️ $200M Sits Idle While Tucson Roads Crumble: Mayor Exposes RTA Funding Standoff | April Council Meeting
Explore the high-stakes decisions facing Tucson as the Ducey tax cuts create a $27M budget hole. Will fare-free transit survive? **Why is $200M in RTA funds sitting unused while roads crumble?**
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
🏙️ The Tucson City Council held a very important meeting to discuss financial challenges. 💰 The city needs an extra $28 million for next year's budget!
📉 This issue arose partly due to changes in Arizona's tax rules that reduced the funds cities rely on for essential services.
🚌 The Council debated whether to start charging for bus rides again (they are currently free), repair neglected roads, support people without homes, and ensure fair pay for city workers.
🗣️ Community members attended the meeting to express their opinions—some wanted to keep bus rides free, while others raised concerns about safety on public transportation. ⚠️
🤔 The Council faces tough decisions on how to allocate their budget because they can't fulfill all the public’s wishes with the funds available.
🗝️ Takeaways
🚨 Budget Crisis: Tucson faces a $28 million projected deficit for FY2026, driven by the Ducey-era flat tax costing $27 million this year alone, with the situation expected to worsen next year
🚌 Transit Crossroads: The Council voted 4-2 to begin the process that could end Tucson's fare-free transit program, with progressive members Santa Cruz and Dahl opposing even the analysis
💵 Pay Equity Push: Despite budget constraints, the Council is advancing a $60 million three-year plan to address pay inequities for city workers, particularly those making less than new hires
🛣️ RTA Standoff: Mayor Romero revealed that $200 million sits in RTA accounts while the Executive Director refuses to release funds for voter-approved Tucson infrastructure projects
📊 Data-Driven Future: Council unanimously approved joining the Bloomberg "What Works Cities" initiative to improve decision-making through data, evidence, and best practices
🏘️ Housing Funding Gap: With $8.7 million in community program requests but only $2.2 million available, roughly 75% of community needs will go unmet despite critical shortages
💧 Water Rate Changes: Council approved a differential rate structure for water customers in unincorporated areas, following the practice of other Arizona cities to ensure city residents don't subsidize county users
👷 Worker Rights Concerns: AFSCME representative confronted Council over "unilateral changes" to compensation structure without proper collaboration with labor unions
Tucson City Council Meeting: Looking Behind the Curtain - April 8, 2025
Key Players in Tucson's Power Structure
Before diving into the marathon meeting that lasted several hours, it's crucial to understand who holds the reins of power in our city. After careful analysis of the transcript, I've identified the following key players:
Mayor Regina Romero - Leading the meeting, pushing for fair employee compensation and balanced budget approaches while navigating difficult fiscal realities
City Manager Tim Thomure - Chief administrator presenting budget challenges and managing city operations
Dr. Terry Train - Human Resources Director presenting compensation plan changes
Anna Rosenberry - Chief Financial Officer presenting budget forecasts
Anjel Ozone-Malem - Business Services Director working on budget
Sam Credio - Director of Transportation and Mobility presenting transit funding options
Anchanaka - Housing and Community Development Director
Corin Manning - Planning and Development Services (interim director)
Carson Vice - Consultant working on development impact fees
Andres Cano - Federal and State Relations Director
Several City Council Members: Vice Mayor Santa Cruz (Ward 1), Kevin Dahl (Ward 3), Steve Kozachik (Ward 6), Steve Cunningham (Ward 2), Lane Santa Cruz (Ward 1), Paul Cunningham, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Uhlich
The meeting revealed the stark class divisions in our society and the financial challenges facing our community. Like many progressive cities nationwide, Tucson finds itself squeezed between meeting essential community needs and dealing with the manufactured crisis of budget shortfalls created by right-wing tax policies. The defeat of Proposition 414, combined with the devastating impact of the Ducey-era flat tax, is draining the city's coffers to the tune of $27 million this year alone.
It's the oldest play in the conservative handbook: first, starve the government of resources through tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy, then claim the government is "broken" and can't deliver services, then demand privatization of public services. Rinse and repeat.
The Human Cost: Call to the Audience
The call to the audience revealed profound community concerns about transit justice, housing insecurity, and worker rights. The room vibrated with the raw energy of community members speaking truth to power—some with voices cracking with emotion, others with the measured precision of those who've spent years in the struggle.
Impassioned Pleas for Free Transit
Gian Lukaslow delivered an urgent appeal about free transit, voice rising with conviction as they declared it "one of the most important services the city provides" and warned that people would "die if Free Transit disappears." Lukaslow framed the issue not just as fiscal policy but as climate justice, calling the potential end of free transit "tantamount to climate change denial."
How many more studies, how many more scientific reports do we need before we acknowledge that transportation access is literally a life-and-death issue for our most vulnerable neighbors?
Violet Winters emphasized that "Fair Free Public Transportation is a testament to our city's values," arguing it ensures everyone regardless of income can access jobs, healthcare, and education. She highlighted the climate justice dimensions, pointing out that "transportation is one of the largest sources of U.S. emissions" and free transit reduces car dependence. As she spoke, several council members nodded, while others stared blankly—the physical manifestation of Tucson's divided priorities.
Joshua Kellogg, a SunTran operator and Teamster member, offered a contrasting perspective, detailing how the free fare policy has coincided with increased assaults, drug use at bus stops, and safety concerns. He noted his 17-year-old son is now "afraid to ride the bus" due to these issues. His testimony highlighted the complex reality of frontline workers caught between policy ideals and daily challenges.
The transit worker perspective matters deeply, but addressing safety through exclusion rather than through meaningful investments in outreach services and harm reduction is just another way of privatizing public space.
Sardina Moon countered by arguing that reinstating fares "won't solve those systemic issues" around homelessness and substance abuse, but would instead push "vulnerable individuals further into the margins." Moon's testimony cut through the misleading narrative that fares somehow create safety, highlighting instead how they merely displace our community's problems from public view.
Abby Oakland delivered a laser-focused critique of budget priorities, noting the direct correlation between transit funding and service quality, arguing that police take a much larger part of the budget despite having "an unclear job." She referenced the Supreme Court case City of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez to support her contention that police "do not actually have a duty to protect the public" and advocated for reallocating police funding to transit.
"Buses have a simple and clear job. They get people from place to place. They do it well. They do it safely," Oakland testified, adding that "buses are safer than driving, which is a dangerous prospect on Tucson streets."
Since this is the first time we at the Three Sonorans have heard of this case, we provide a quick summary below of this shocking ruling:
In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that a woman did not have a constitutional right to have a restraining order enforced by the police. The court held that state and local governments do not have a constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm.
In this case, Jessica Gonzales's estranged husband violated a protective order and abducted her children, whom he later murdered. Despite Gonzales's repeated requests, the police refused to enforce the order, leading to the children's deaths.
The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Town of Castle Rock, stating that Gonzales did not have a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to police enforcement of the restraining order.
When was the last time your city councilor acknowledged that the Supreme Court has ruled police have no legal duty to protect you, while continuing to funnel millions into their budget?
Edward Fikes and Sally Fikes, both SunTran drivers, advocated for reinstating fares to "weed out a lot of the trouble" and "weed out the good from the bad." Sally described passengers openly discussing drug deals, with one saying, "I just made this on the corner. Where do you want to go party at?"
Alena Nazalik delivered a scathing critique of the Council's budgeting priorities, saying "We will not be paying for your inability to budget" and questioning why 7 of 18 budget items relate to police. She challenged the utility of police helicopters, demanding to know "what we need more helicopter fuel and parts for," adding that the helicopters "accomplish nothing but increasing noise, wasting money, and spewing fossil fuels." The Council chambers fell uncomfortably silent during her pointed critique.
Hallie Walsak called for a dedicated funding source for transit, noting that Tucson is "an absolute outlier in cities our size" without such funding, and advocating for a public vote on transit funding. "More often than not, when communities are asked to invest in transit, whether they use it or not, they say yes because it's like libraries, it's like parks, it's like schools," she noted.
Ben Lucero from AFSCME criticized the city for "unilateral changes" to the compensation plan without proper collaboration with labor unions, asking: "When is the disrespect to AFSCME, CWA, going to stop?" His testimony highlighted the ongoing struggle of public workers to have their voices heard in decisions affecting their livelihoods.
Housing Advocacy Front and Center
Victoria DeVasto detailed the barriers faced by unhoused individuals seeking shelter, highlighting stringent intake processes at Gospel Rescue Mission, Sister Jose's, and Salvation Army.
With meticulous detail, she explained that Gospel Rescue Mission "requires only an in-person intake Monday through Thursday. You have to line up outside starting at 6 a.m. They only take 10 people at maximum per day."
She warned about the upcoming closure of Santa Rita Park on April 21st with "no plan for the unhoused people who seek shade and resources in that area," and disputed city claims about proper outreach to affected individuals. "There are no notices posted," she stated bluntly, while council members shifted uncomfortably in their seats.
DeVasto delivered a powerful connection between transit and housing justice, emphasizing that "free public transportation was the sole reason people were able to make their appointments" for housing, behavioral health, and substance use services. She noted that at one agency, "there was a policy that clients would be discharged after two missed appointments," making transit access literally the difference between receiving services or being cut off.
How can we talk about solving homelessness while simultaneously creating more barriers to the very services meant to address it?
Roque Perez, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Education Commission, praised Mayor and Council's leadership on Proposition 414 while acknowledging its defeat. He noted the federal resource shrinkage impacting education access. He shared the stunning fact that "Arizona ranks 50th in the entire country when it comes to completion of [FAFSA]" forms, hindering student financial aid access—particularly for "students from mixed-status families" who face disproportionate barriers.
Fiscal Crisis Looms: Budget Presentation Reveals Shortfall
The financial presentation unfolded like a slow-motion disaster film, revealing a stunning $28 million projected operating deficit for FY2026, driven by declining sales tax revenues both locally and at the state level. The spreadsheets and charts displayed on screen painted a brutal picture: projected year-end available fund balance sits at negative $8.1 million, with even more alarming projections showing deficits of over $40 million in the following fiscal year.
City Manager Timothy Thumure didn't mince words when describing the severity of the situation, his normally measured tone tinged with unmistakable concern: "When you look at how the budget for next year is taking shape... we have a $27 million deficit." The manager explained that the revenues are fixed factors, meaning cuts will need to come from the expenditure side, noting, "We need to have a balanced budget plus $44 million coming out of next year."
Let's be crystal clear about what we're seeing: This isn't a natural disaster or an unavoidable economic cycle—this is the deliberate result of right-wing tax policies designed to starve public services into submission.
Major factors contributing to this crisis include:
The Ducey-era flat tax costing the city $27 million this year and projected to grow to over $40 million next year
Trump tariffs creating economic uncertainty and depressing spending
A dramatic decline in projected sales tax growth from 7.38% to a mere 1.1%
Supplemental budget requests totaling $82 million that cannot all be funded
As Anna Rosenberry, the city's CFO, walked through the grim figures, council members leaned forward in their seats, brows furrowed. The atmosphere in the room grew increasingly tense as the reality set in—this financial crisis would touch every corner of city services and every resident depending on them.
Mayor Romero, who has consistently advocated for progressive taxation and equitable service delivery, framed the challenge bluntly: "Something's got to give, people. Something has got to give. And in times of need, I think we have to be innovative and creative." In a pointed observation highlighting the contrasting approaches to municipal governance, she reminded attendees that Phoenix's City Council approved a half-cent sales tax increase unanimously after Tucson voters rejected a similar measure.
The fact that Phoenix—hardly a bastion of progressive politics—unanimously approved the same tax measure Tucson rejected speaks volumes about the effectiveness of right-wing fear-mongering and anti-tax propaganda in our community, or a lack of trust in the city leaders with those tax dollars.
A stark contrast emerged between budget realities and employee needs, as the Council earlier approved a significant compensation plan aimed at addressing pay inequities. Dr. Terry Train, HR Director, presented a multi-year compensation plan with evident passion for supporting the city's workforce, including:
Implementation of performance management across the organization
In-range pay placement for 896 incumbents to address inequities
Annual pay progression of 1.5% for all employees
Market adjustments for non-commissioned employees based on market studies
A three-year plan to move police and fire personnel to market rates plus 1%
"This represents nearly $60 million in employee compensation investments over three years," Train explained, while council members visibly struggled with the tension between supporting workers and addressing the looming deficit.
Mayor Romero captured this tension in her remarks: "As mayor and even as a council member, one of the most important issues that I've pushed for and policy priorities that I've had is to make sure that we are compensating our employees in the fairest manner."
She recounted her experience working with labor groups during previous economic downturns, noting how "many times, the labor groups [made] decisions against their own pocketbook to make sure that we would continue providing good quality services for our community."
The stark reality facing the Council wasn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet—it was about the lives of thousands of city workers who power our community's daily functions and the hundreds of thousands of residents who depend on those services. The collision between fair compensation and fiscal constraints represents the impossible choices forced upon local governments by regressive state and federal policies.
Transit Funding Crisis: Free Fares Hanging by a Thread
The transit discussion exposed the deep ideological rifts within our city leadership regarding public services and who deserves access to them. Transportation Director Sam Credio presented several potential funding options to maintain service levels, his carefully neutral presentation belying the life-altering consequences at stake:
Partnership agreements with institutions like the University of Arizona and Pima Community College
A $1 increase in the hotel/motel surcharge (generating ~$2 million)
An increase in the public utility tax from 4.5% to 5%
Potential use of Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF)
Consideration of raising parking rates
However, the most contentious issue was the potential return to fare collection—a move that would disproportionately impact low-income residents, elderly individuals, students, and the unhoused who have come to rely on fare-free transit as a lifeline to employment, healthcare, and education.
The Council split along visible ideological lines, voting 4-2 to begin a Title VI equity analysis on five fare scenarios. Council Members Dahl and Vice Mayor Santa Cruz cast the dissenting votes, refusing to even consider reinstating fares. The tension in the room was palpable as the vote occurred, with several audience members shaking their heads in visible disappointment.
It speaks volumes that we're even considering charging fares for public transit while multi-millionaires and corporations continue to enjoy the benefits of Arizona's disastrous flat tax. This is nothing less than a regressive tax on our most vulnerable residents.
Vice Mayor Santa Cruz delivered an impassioned defense of fare-free transit, her voice carrying the moral clarity of someone speaking uncomfortable truths: "This contradicts our commitment to fair free transit through fiscal year 2026." She revealed the political machinations behind the scenes, sharing that when advocating for Prop 414, she knew "if it didn't pass, the first thing on the chopping block would be our fair free transit policy."
"As life becomes more expensive and wages stay flat," she concluded, "we need to stay creative and compassionate in how we serve our residents. Going backward on public transit access isn't just a policy mistake. I think it's a failure of imagination."
The financial realities presented by Credio undercut much of the financial argument for reinstating fares. He estimated that reinstating fares would cost around $500,000 just to restart collection systems, while generating substantially less than the $10 million sometimes cited due to anticipated ridership drops. In essence, reinstating fares would create a devastating barrier for vulnerable residents while barely making a dent in the budget deficit.
Council Member Kevin Dahl echoed these sentiments, stating bluntly: "I believe the benefits of our current fare-free system outweigh the costs," and connecting transit to climate justice and Tucson's urban development goals.
As this debate unfolded, many transit riders in the audience watched anxiously, knowing their daily lives—the ability to reach work, school, and medical appointments—hung in the balance of what might seem like abstract fiscal decisions to the more privileged members of our community.
RTA Funding Gap: City Takes Initiative While Regional Partners Hoard Resources
The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) discussion pulled back the curtain on a deeply troubling regional inequality. Transportation Director Sam Credio revealed a $143 million shortfall in completing transportation projects that Tucson voters were promised—projects crucial for safety, accessibility, and economic development in historically underserved areas.
The RTA situation perfectly illustrates how suburban and rural interests often hold urban centers hostage, blocking resources and investment while urban taxpayers subsidize sprawl development across the region.
Credio, maintaining professional composure despite the frustrating circumstances, presented options to close this gap through scope reductions on major corridors:
Grant Road (Phases 5-6): Potential savings of $77 million by reducing the cross-section
1st Avenue (Grant to River): Savings of $57 million by downscoping from six to four lanes
Grant Road railroad tracks near I-10: Deferring bicycle/pedestrian bridge ($8 million savings)
Silverbell Road: Removing median travel lanes while preserving future expansion ability
As Credio detailed these potential compromises, the implications for Tucson residents became clear: less safe cycling infrastructure, more congested roadways, and continued neglect of infrastructure needs that suburban commuters take for granted in their own communities.
The bombshell came when Mayor Romero revealed a troubling dynamic with the RTA, her voice reflecting barely contained frustration: "There's about $200 million in the RTA bank. The problem has been that the Executive Director and their attorney have said that the City of Tucson cannot use it."
This stunning revelation—that nearly $200 million sits unused while crucial infrastructure projects remain unfunded—sparked visible anger among council members. Council Member Cunningham expressed the collective frustration, asking pointedly, "What options do we have other than taking them to court?"
Council Member Dahl, who has lived near the unfinished Grant Road section for over 40 years, shared his exasperation: "I've been promised for 40 years that it was going to get widened," adding that the current situation has created "an hourglass" of traffic congestion.
The discussion exposed a fundamental injustice in regional governance: Tucson bears the brunt of regional transportation needs while suburban jurisdictions withhold funds and block the completion of voter-approved projects. Meanwhile, Tucson residents—particularly those in historically marginalized areas—continue to navigate dangerous, outdated infrastructure while watching resources sit idle.
Housing Investments: Community Programs Funding Stretched to Breaking Point
Housing and Community Development Director Anchanaka presented recommendations for community program funding, revealing the stark and heartbreaking gap between community needs and available resources. The numbers tell a devastating story about our priorities as a society: 83 applications from community organizations requested approximately $8.7 million against only $2.2 million available—meaning roughly three-quarters of the city's critical community needs will go unmet.
While Congress approves billions for military hardware and Arizona offers tax breaks to corporations, our neighbors experiencing homelessness, domestic violence survivors, and children in need are told to fight over crumbs. This isn't a budget problem—it's a values problem.
"This is the first time doing the process as the director for me," Anchanaka explained, a note of genuine regret in their voice, "and I'll be, I mentioned this to a few of you, I found it really difficult. There are so many incredible nonprofits in our community doing great work and much needed work, and so of course I want to be able to recommend funding for all of them."
To stretch the woefully inadequate funding as far as possible, Anchanaka implemented a sliding scale reduction for larger requests:
15% reduction for projects requesting $60,000-$100,000
20% reduction for projects requesting $100,000-$150,000
25% reduction for projects requesting over $150,000
Each percentage represents not just dollars, but real human needs going unmet—shelter beds not provided, crisis counseling not offered, job training not delivered. Behind every dollar cut is a Tucsonan whose pathway to stability becomes more precarious.
Council Member Dahl acknowledged the painful reality, saying, "It's just a very frustrating process because of what it is, but we should be glad that we're able to support some really great projects."
This approach maximizes the number of funded organizations while still ensuring viability of selected programs—a valiant attempt to address systemic needs with dramatically insufficient resources. But the underlying reality remains: as long as our tax system privileges the wealthy and corporations over working people, our community's most vulnerable members will continue to suffer the consequences.
Modernizing City Operations: What Works Cities Certification Initiative
In a rare moment of policy optimism amid the budget gloom, Council Member Lee introduced a presentation from the What Works Cities initiative, a Bloomberg Philanthropies program designed to help cities use data more effectively to serve residents. While the initiative doesn't directly address the structural inequities in our economic system, it does offer tools to maximize the impact of limited resources.
Representatives Rochelle and Nana joined virtually from New York to explain how the program helps cities:
Create data-driven decision-making frameworks
Build capacity through free technical assistance
Connect with peer cities for knowledge sharing
Implement targeted community engagement practices
"Our belief is that if local governments can root decision-making on critical issues in data, improving strategies and solutions, it will strengthen the resident experience and outcomes in cities," explained Rochelle, whose background spans nonprofit, government, and philanthropy sectors.
Nana shared concrete examples of impact, including how Mesa addressed homelessness through data by developing "a customized internal dashboard tailored specifically for park rangers. This dashboard centralized information on available services, location, procedures, streamlining how rangers could support individuals experiencing homelessness." The result? "Over the past year alone, park rangers have now made more than 60,000 contacts with unhoused residents."
Let's be honest—while data-driven approaches are important, we also need political courage to confront the root causes of inequality. No dashboard alone will solve homelessness when wages stay stagnant while rents skyrocket.
Mayor Romero endorsed the initiative, saying it's "music to my ears" that the program centers on "improving residents' lives by using data and evidence to effectively tackle pressing challenges." She connected the initiative to her own governance philosophy, noting that "we have done a lot of really good work together based on data and evidence-driven solutions."
City Manager Thomure committed that staff would complete the initial assessment by July, though he noted the "harder work begins" after that initial step. The unanimous vote to move forward highlighted a rare moment of consensus among council members otherwise divided on more contentious budget and policy matters.
The real test will be whether this data-driven approach is used to genuinely redistribute resources to our most vulnerable communities, or merely to justify continued austerity for working people while resources flow upward to the privileged few.
Development Impact Fees: Ensuring Growth Pays Its Fair Share or Another Barrier to Affordability?
Planning and Development Services presented updated development impact fees designed to ensure new development helps fund the infrastructure it requires. While seemingly a technical matter, these fees represent a crucial battleground in the struggle between affordable housing and ensuring corporations and developers pay their fair share.
The proposed fees represent increases of 40-41% for residential development based on home size, ranging from $3,906 for homes under 750 square feet to $12,869 for largest homes. For non-residential uses, fees would range from $668 per thousand square feet for warehouse space to $9,577 for commercial retail.
Even as developers complain about any fee increase, we should remember that these costs are a fraction of the massive profits extracted from our community through skyrocketing rents and housing prices. Why is it always working people asked to sacrifice while development interests continue to reap record profits?
The presentation by consultant Carson Vice highlighted the tension between ensuring development pays its fair share and maintaining housing affordability. He described the fees as "the maximum supportable or the maximum allowable impact fees based on the assumptions made throughout the studies," while acknowledging that "the city may adopt fees that are lower than the amount shown." However, he cautioned that lower fees would "necessitate an increase in other revenues which typically come from the general fund."
Council Member Cunningham challenged the fee structure for hotels, questioning why hotel rooms are assessed only $68 per door for parks and recreation impact fees despite the city's significant tourism season. In a moment of rare pushback against the consultant's recommendations, Cunningham noted Tucson's vibrant tourist season "from about Columbus Day to St. Patrick's Day," when hotels experience 80-90% occupancy, particularly during February's confluence of the golf tournament, rodeo, and "the largest gem show in the world."
The exchange highlighted how even seemingly neutral technical analyses often fail to account for the specific realities of our community, potentially leaving money on the table that could fund vital public infrastructure while giving certain industries a pass on paying their fair share.
Vice Mayor Santa Cruz raised concerns about how the fees would impact affordable housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are increasingly important housing options in an unaffordable market. She questioned whether higher fees would undermine efforts to incentivize "smaller housing footprint and making that less costly."
The development impact fee timeline includes:
April 22: Public hearing (potentially to be rescheduled)
June 3: Adoption of fees
August 18: Fees take effect
The question we should be asking isn't just how high these fees should be, but who ultimately bears their cost—developers' profit margins or residents through higher housing costs—and how we can structure them to promote housing justice while ensuring growth truly pays for itself.
Votes Taken and Outcomes
The Road Ahead: Community Power Can Still Shape Our Future
As Tucson navigates these challenging fiscal waters, one thing became abundantly clear throughout the marathon meeting: the decisions made in these chambers will profoundly impact every resident's daily life, from their ability to reach a doctor's appointment to whether their neighborhood receives infrastructure improvements.
The budget discussions revealed profound tensions between maintaining vital services and addressing fiscal realities. As Mayor Romero noted, "We have to balance our budget, and we cannot continue to provide all of the free services that we were providing with federal financial support." Yet she also emphasized the importance of "protecting the most vulnerable residents amongst us."
Council Member Uhlich captured the gravity of the moment when she acknowledged, "It's a daunting time," but expressed "tremendous confidence that we'll find the right path together." Vice Mayor Santa Cruz urged consideration of our "core services as the floor and not the ceiling," a powerful reframing of how we think about government's role.
The city is conducting budget town halls, with a virtual session scheduled for April 10th from 6-7 pm. An online budget survey is open through April 11th at midnight on the city's website (tucsonaz.gov). These official engagement opportunities remain crucial, but they are not enough.
True people power doesn't confine itself to structured engagement opportunities carefully managed by those in power—it manifests in organizing, in showing up en masse, in building coalitions across issue areas, and in challenging the very framework of scarcity itself.
The budget survey has already received 1,846 responses, representing over 92 hours of public comment—more than double last year's participation. This surge in engagement reflects the rising awareness that our city stands at a crossroads. Will we continue down the path of austerity, asking those with the least to sacrifice the most? Or will we find the collective courage to demand a more just allocation of resources and challenge the systems that have created artificial scarcity in a land of plenty?
Hope lies not in wishful thinking but in the power of organized communities to transform political realities. The passionate testimonies delivered during call to the audience demonstrated that Tucsonans understand what's at stake and are willing to fight for a city that truly serves everyone—not just those with wealth and power.
The coming weeks will test our community's resolve and our commitment to justice. Will we accept the false choice between vital services or will we unite to demand that the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share? Will we allow fear and scarcity to divide us, or will we build solidarity across our differences?
The budget is not just a financial document—it's a moral one, declaring in cold numbers whose lives matter and whose needs can be sacrificed. Our collective response must be equally moral: a resounding insistence that everyone deserves dignity, mobility, shelter, and safety—not as privileges to be purchased, but as rights to be guaranteed.
Join local advocacy groups fighting for transit justice, housing rights, and economic equity. Attend budget hearings and Council meetings. Call, email, and visit your Council members. Connect with neighbors to organize your block, your neighborhood, your workplace. Only through sustained collective action can we create the Tucson we all deserve.
What kind of city could we build if we rejected austerity and instead demanded that our vast collective resources be directed toward human flourishing? How would our lives change if we recognized our shared destiny and refused to allow artificial divides of race, class, and geography to separate us?
We invite you to share your thoughts and continue this crucial conversation in the comments below.
Quotes
Gian Lukaslow (Transit Advocate): "People will die if Free Transit disappears... It's tantamount to climate change denial to not take this seriously."
Sally Fikes (SunTran Driver): "I am not rich. I work 50 to 60 hours a week just so I can pay for my apartment... to transport these people around that are not appreciative and don't deserve to be on these buses for free."
Alena Nazalik (Community Member): "We will not be paying for your inability to budget. Your budget deficit is caused by the fact that 7 out of 18 of the things you would like to put on the budget are related to the police department."
Mayor Regina Romero: "There's about $200 million in the RTA bank. The problem has been that the Executive Director and their attorney have said that the City of Tucson cannot use it."
Victoria DeVasto (Housing Advocate): "The date of closure [for Santa Rita Park] is fast approaching on April 21st. There is no plan for the unhoused people who seek shade and resources in that area."
City Manager Timothy Thomure: "We have a $27 million deficit... We need to have a balanced budget plus $44 million coming out of next year."
Vice Mayor Santa Cruz: "Going backward on public transit access isn't just a policy mistake. I think it's a failure of imagination."
Council Member Cunningham: "I want to talk really quick about some of the shifts in utility functions especially with graffiti that should probably be an environmental services piece like we're just a 100% part of environmental services."
People Mentioned and Notable Quotes
Mayor Regina Romero (Mayor of Tucson): "Something's got to give, people. Something has got to give. And in times of need, I think we have to be innovative and creative." Leading the meeting and advocating for balanced approach to difficult budget decisions.
Timothy Thomure (City Manager): "When you look at how the budget for next year is taking shape... we have a $27 million deficit." Chief administrator presenting the stark financial realities facing the city.
Dr. Terry Train (Human Resources Director): Presented multi-year compensation plan to address pay inequities, particularly focusing on situations where "somebody new was hired into my job, same job, and they make more than I do."
Sam Credio (Transportation Director): Presented transit funding options and explained how reinstating fares would cost around $500,000 just to restart collection while generating substantially less than claimed due to ridership drops.
Vice Mayor Santa Cruz (Ward 1): "As life becomes more expensive and wages stay flat, we need to stay creative and compassionate in how we serve our residents. Going backward on public transit access isn't just a policy mistake. I think it's a failure of imagination." Strong advocate for maintaining fare-free transit.
Kevin Dahl (Council Member): "I believe the benefits of our current fair free system outweigh the costs." Voted with Vice Mayor against even beginning fare analysis.
Council Member Lee: Introduced the What Works Cities initiative, advocating for data-driven governance while noting the city is "doing a lot of amazing things already."
Council Member Uhlich: "It's a daunting time and I have tremendous confidence that we'll find the right path together."
Gian Lukaslow (Transit Advocate): "People will die if Free Transit disappears... It's tantamount to climate change denial to not take this seriously."
Abby Oakland (Community Member): "Buses have a simple and clear job. They get people from place to place. They do it well. They do it safely."
Alena Nazalik (Community Member): "We will not be paying for your inability to budget... Tell me what we need more helicopter fuel and parts for."
Victoria DeVasto (Housing Advocate): Detailed strict intake processes at shelters, noting Gospel Rescue Mission "requires only an in-person intake Monday through Thursday. You have to line up outside starting at 6 a.m. They only take 10 people at maximum per day."
Ben Lucero (AFSCME Union Representative): "When is the disrespect to AFSCME, CWA, going to stop? We do just the same work as police and fire. We provide services that are needed throughout the city."
Rochelle (What Works Cities Representative): "If local governments can root decision-making on critical issues in data, improving strategies and solutions, it will strengthen the resident experience and outcomes in cities."
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message!
