The San Tan Valley Town Council voted unanimously on Jan. 21, 2026, to oppose House Bill 2273 in its current form and direct staff to seek amendments. The bill would distribute approximately $45 million in Pinal County transportation tax revenues without including any projects in San Tan Valley. Council members also voted to oppose a second bill, HB 2106, unless it is amended to include San Tan Valley.
Town Manager Brent Billingsley called the discovery of HB 2273 “a big surprise” when it dropped earlier in the week. He immediately notified council members and worked with Town Attorney Allen Quist to add the issue to the meeting agenda.
“What you see in House Bill 2273 is a list of 12 different entities and projects throughout Pinal County that make up that remaining amount,” Billingsley explained. “The one thing that isn’t there is a project in San Tan Valley, an entity that makes up about a fifth of the population of Pinal County, has a third of the total lane miles of roads in Pinal County, and obviously a lot of the traffic and congestion that exists in Pinal County.”
Background on the Transportation Funds
The money stems from Proposition 417, a transportation excise tax approved by Pinal County voters in November 2017. The tax took effect in April 2018, but the Goldwater Institute challenged it in court. The Arizona Supreme Court struck down the tax in March 2022, ruling its two-tiered structure violated state law. The county had designed the tax so that only the first $10,000 of any purchase was taxed, with amounts above that taxed at zero percent. The Goldwater Institute, which brought the lawsuit, argued the structure was designed to neutralize political opposition to the tax. Roughly $45 million remains after refund claims. Businesses can request refunds through April 9, 2026, and legislators are now deciding how to allocate what remains.
HB 2273, sponsored by Representative Martinez, would allocate that money to 12 specific projects across Pinal County. Recipients would include the towns of Superior, Florence, and Queen Creek, the cities of Maricopa, Casa Grande, Coolidge, and Eloy, plus Pinal County itself, the Gila River Indian Community, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, and the Saddlebrooke community.
HB 2106, also sponsored by Martinez, takes a different approach. It would send the remaining funds to the Arizona Department of Transportation for distribution on county projects. The bill includes an emergency clause, which would make the law take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature rather than 90 days after the legislative session ends.
Council Members Respond to San Tan Valley’s Exclusion
Mayor Daren Schnepf said he was “a little baffled by the first HB 2273 where San Tan Valley got zero, and the citizens help pay into that, and we got nothing back.” He said the council should oppose the bill.
Councilmember Brian Tyler called the exclusion “very short-sighted of that representative to not include anything in this area.”
Vice Mayor Tyler Hudgins questioned why local representatives signed onto HB 2273. Billingsley confirmed that Representatives Blackman, Carter, Lopez, Marshall, and Way all co-sponsored the bill alongside Martinez.
Hudgins said he would “love to hear from them why they would sign onto a bill that does not include San Tan Valley.” He also questioned how officials determined the distribution amounts.
Concerns About ADOT Receiving the Funds
Billingsley reported that other Pinal County cities and towns raised concerns about HB 2106 at a recent legislative meeting, saying they “do not want the funds going to ADOT because they will include overhead costs and we won’t have a determination in terms of priorities and it could go to funding design or environmental clearance instead of actual construction.”
Bills Remain Early in Legislative Process
Billingsley emphasized that both bills remain in the early stages.
“It’s so early. There’s so much to happen,” Billingsley said. “These haven’t gone to committee yet. I’m sure they’re gonna be rewritten, there’s gonna be changes. Maybe they don’t even make it to committee.”
He said he was told a third and possibly fourth bill had already been introduced, though he did not yet have copies.
How the Council Can Influence These Bills
“Things can move fast in the legislature,” Quist said, recommending staff be given flexibility to negotiate while maintaining opposition to the current language.
Billingsley added that even if these bills stall in committee, the language could be inserted into other legislation that’s already advancing.
Council Votes to Oppose and Negotiate
The council took separate votes on each bill.
For HB 2273, Vice Mayor Hudgins moved to oppose the bill in its current form but direct staff to begin negotiating and seeking inclusion for San Tan Valley. Wolfert seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
For HB 2106, Wolfert moved to direct staff to advocate for amendments that include San Tan Valley transportation projects and to oppose the bill unless such amendments are adopted. Hudgins seconded. That motion also passed unanimously.
Council Members to Advocate at the Capitol
Council members and staff will need to register as lobbyists to advocate directly with legislators. Wolfert volunteered to take on that role, noting his downtown Phoenix commute places him close to the Capitol. Mayor Schnepf also said he would be willing to go if needed.
“I’m more than happy to deliver the town council’s sentiment on some of these issues, and to really hammer the point home that we do need to be included in this,” Wolfert said.
Billingsley committed to providing legislative updates at future council meetings. When Wolfert asked if the council would need to reconvene to take positions on additional bills, Billingsley said “potentially” and that he would keep members updated.
