A cautionary tale: Bond elections might not turn out as voters had hoped

In 2004, Pima County asked voters to approve a $76 million bond to construct the Pima County Joint Court Complex to house the Pima County Justice Court and the Tucson City Court. Voters were told that the facility was needed because both courts were housed in obsolete, overcrowded and deteriorating space that was no longer adequate for the functions of either court.

Eleven years later, after spending $140 million — almost double what voters approved — Pima County has constructed a symbol of intransigence and petty bickering between government officials at the expense of the public good.

The Justice Court was in the old Pima County Courthouse, completed in 1929, and the City Court was — and still is — in a 50-year-old converted parking garage/office building which had developed structural problems and had outlived its useful life by several decades.

These two courts were and are the busiest courts in the county, handling hundreds of thousands of traffic and criminal cases a year. Although many county residents have contact with these courts, they often confuse the two and their location. The proposed joint complex was to eliminate this confusion and make the court system more accessible and less expensive.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

After the bond passed and planning began, it became clear that there was a significant shortfall of funds needed to build the courthouse. Archaeological work and design changes in 2013 resulted in a new total price tag of about $140 million. Unfortunately, the county and city were unable to agree on which should provide the additional funds. As a result of this impasse, the city withdrew from the project, and the county went forward with the new building only for Justice Court and county offices and renamed the facility the Pima County Public Services Building. The city was left with no solution to its long-term courthouse needs.

All city and county residents are losers in this case, and it serves as an example of voters not getting what they voted for and approved for the bond.

This is a cautionary tale for voters as they consider the 2015 county bond proposal. What voters agree to buy with their tax dollars in a bond election may not be what they actually get.