2015 endorsements by the Arizona Daily Star

If you live in Tucson, you know our city has a problem with drivers who speed and who run red lights.

The question is what to do about them.

The city’s answer has been to hire a private company to operate red-light cameras at eight intersections and to deploy mobile radar vans. On Nov. 3, voters will decide whether they agree. Proposition 201 would ban the cameras.

The way the system is set up is flawed and must be improved. But we believe the cameras deter reckless driving and should remain. We urge a “no” vote on the ban.

The proposed ban is on the ballot because of a petition drive by voters long-frustrated with the program.

Those opponents correctly point out that innocent drivers are snared because of how state law defines where an “intersection” begins. This is especially a problem at large intersections. One solution would be to paint these intersections so drivers clearly understand what’s legal and not. Another would be to lengthen the yellow-light cycle to give drivers more time to clear the intersection.

And then there is the matter of fines. Run a red light in the city of Tucson and the fine is $335. Do the same thing in Phoenix and it’s $245 and in Pima County $283. Tucson is also the highest in each of three categories of speed violations. The City Council should review the rates and justify the amounts.

Police chief Roberto Villaseñor recently said that there were 57 collisions last fiscal year at the eight intersections with cameras. There were 188 in 2006 — the year before the cameras were installed.

Crashes are down in general, so we don’t argue that the difference is entirely attributable to the cameras.

But we know this with certainty: When we see a camera or a radar van, we take a look around and at our speedometer. We think about safety. That’s why the cameras have value and why we urge you to vote “no” on Proposition 201.

The mayor can vote to hire key city administrators, but not to fire them. Voters can fix that on Nov. 3 by voting “yes” to amend the City Charter to give the mayor both powers. Vote “yes” on Proposition 403.

The city’s top administrator — the manager, by title — cannot hire and fire all of the employees who directly report to him. In a convoluted chain of command, some of those decisions now fall to the City Council. You can clean up this mess by voting “yes” on Proposition 404.

The mayor and council are against Proposition 405, which would increase their pay. It would raise the mayor’s salary from $42,000 to $48,360 and council members’ salaries from $24,000 to $27,456. We agree that this is not the time to give pay raises to the bosses. Vote “no.”

Pima County voters should approve all seven bond propositions on the Nov. 3 ballot. They represent a wide range of infrastructure, safety and economic development projects.

While some of the 99 projects are more “want” than “need,” each proposition includes, on balance, improvements that are widely beneficial and should be supported. The central jobs of local government — parks, infrastructure and roads — are well represented in the bond program.

Bonding is how local governments pay for large projects. Instead of hiking taxes all at once to pay for $200 million in road and highway improvements, for example, the county sells bonds and repays them over 12 years, with interest.

The projects are also scheduled in phases, so passage in November does not mean bond sales, construction or repairs would begin immediately on everything.

The seven propositions are not perfect. But they are the result of countless volunteer hours from the Pima County Bond Advisory Committee, whose members culled through hundreds of proposals and requests to come up with the final list.

The bonds are wisely divvied up into packages so voters can choose “yes” on some while saying “no” to others. If all pass, the owner of an owner-occupied home valued by the assessor at $120,693 — the median — would pay about $14 more per year, according to county figures. The exact amount would change in coming years, based on home values and tax rates.

The seven packages are:

• Proposition 425 Road and Highway Improvements

• ($200 million): This one is a clear choice. Our roads must be fixed. This is a plan to repair and maintain roads, and invest $30 million in the “Sonoran Corridor Highway” that would connect Interstate 19 to Interstate 10 south of Tucson. It’s the kind of project that will pay off in the years to come in terms of economic development.

• Proposition 426 Economic Development, Libraries and Workforce Training

• ($91 million): Improving libraries makes sense, as does spending money on economic development through JobPath, the Pima County One Stop Career Center and the Oro Valley Business Accelerator. The most knocked part of this, the Southern Arizona Regional Orientation Center, would be much more than a visitor center, but should be lower on the list when it comes to implementation.

• Proposition 427 Tourism Promotion

• ($98 million): This item includes several questionable projects, including $10 million for a new Canoa Ranch museum, orientation center and improvements. Other projects, such as to expand the Reid Park Zoo and the Children’s Museum Tucson, are supportable because they get a lot of traffic from Tucsonans. Also, supporters of the zoo and museum have pledged to raise private dollars to go along with the taxpayer money. Other projects on the ballot also require private funds. On balance, the beneficial projects outweigh the dubious ones.

• Proposition 428 Parks and Recreation

• ($191 million): Forty-eight projects across the area, although many are focused away from the economically stressed central core. Parks are an essential function of local government, and widely used.

• Proposition 429 Public Health, Welfare, Safety, Neighborhoods and Housing

• ($105 million): Moving and expanding the Pima County North Clinic makes sense, as does $20 million to help create 1,000 new units in the county’s affordable housing program.

• Proposition 430 Natural Area Conservation and Historic Preservation

• ($112 million): This item best illustrates a want versus a need. However, our natural environment is a substantial tourism and quality of life asset, and should be conserved.

• Proposition 431 Flood Control and Drainage

• ($17 million): Preserving watersheds and riparian areas while protecting communities from flooding is a fundamental function of government.

Shared responsibility

The packages include projects across the county, and yes, that means someone who owns a house on the east side ends up paying for improvements in Marana, even though they may never use them. But that’s how bonds work — it’s a shared responsibility.

Residents should know that our county handles bond planning differently than other Arizona counties, and that skews the perception of bond debt to look like Pima County residents are overtaxed compared with other regions.

In fact, the Arizona Auditor General’s office commended Pima County for running its bond programs as a regional effort, where municipalities and organizations work together to ask voters for a unified bond package.

Elsewhere, especially within Maricopa County, municipalities can, and some do, ask residents to tax themselves for specific projects. This lowers their county property taxes, but they pay higher city taxes. Pima County is unusual in that we work together.

Voter assurances

A common, though somewhat misplaced, complaint about Pima County bond programs is that voters approve projects but then they’re altered or scrapped. While the Board of Supervisors legally and properly changed pieces of prior bond programs, it is understandable that residents are wary that what they vote for isn’t guaranteed to be what they get.

Pima County states in its Bond Implementation Plan that if a project will be off schedule by a year or more, or comes in 25 percent above or below the estimate listed in the proposition language, then the supervisors must examine and decide on the change after a public hearing.

Also, according to the Implementation Plan: “If a project included in this Bond Ordinance is later determined not to be feasible, then the bond funds for that project will not be sold, the funds would not be reallocated to another project, the county will not incur the debt, and taxpayers will not be taxed to repay that debt.”

This offers protection against the county scrapping projects to favor others.

While the seven bond proposals aren’t perfect, we support their passage. They address needs, as well as wants, but on balance the needs win out.

Margaret Burkholder served 10 years on the Vail Unified School District board before she became a candidate for the Ward 4 Tucson City Council seat.

We believe she understands the role of an elected representative and is the best choice on Nov. 3 for the southeast side job.

Burkholder, a Republican and a math teacher, spoke at the Star’s editorial board meeting about the importance of setting measureable goals for the city and then making budget and policy decisions to support those outcomes.

An example, she told us, would be to raise Tucson’s median household income to a specific level. The council would benefit from having more members whose decisions on the myriad of challenges confronting the city are driven by that sort of thinking.

On the Vail board, Burkholder had a reputation for asking staff tough questions. This trait, in particular, is one that sets her apart from the Democratic incumbent, Shirley Scott.

In our interview with Scott, which took place two days after the Sun Tran bus strike ended, we asked whether she had read the agreement between the employees and the private company the city hired to run the buses. She told us, in essence, that she did not need a copy because she could do nothing to change it and, besides, the city manager already knew the details.

The settlement gives employees raises — money that can be covered for now out of savings from not running buses during the strike, but that will certainly pose a budget challenge to the city in the future. Local taxpayers already pump almost $30 million a year into Sun Tran. It is inconceivable to us that Scott would not be curious about the settlement and its long-term implications.

We did not endorse Scott four years ago because of similar concerns. Back then, she blamed the decade-long Rio Nuevo debacle on bad advice from former city managers and senior staff. At that point, the city had spent $230 million on downtown redevelopment with little to show for it. Staff may have been out of control for chasing crazy projects like a science center bridging over Interstate 10, but it was most certainly the council’s responsibility to question the spending.

Recently, Scott told a local group that Rio Nuevo critics “haven’t come back to me and said, ‘You know, you were right, it’s really good.’” Downtown is much better now, but that is not because of Scott’s leadership. A new Rio Nuevo board, mayor, city manager and others deserve the credit.

Scott has served on the City Council for 20 years and is without question dedicated to the betterment of Tucson. We believe, however, that Burkholder will be a more effective voice for taxpayers.

The Star endorses Margaret Burkholder for Ward 4.

In the Ward 2 northeast side City Council race the choice is between Democrat Paul Cunningham, who is the incumbent with a decent record of accomplishment, and Kelly Lawton, a Republican newcomer to city politics.

The Star endorses Cunningham, a social studies teacher who has matured into a politician who does his homework. During our editorial board interview he displayed an impressive grasp of the insomnia-inducing details of governance and a vision rooted in practical thinking.

There’s no dodging that Cunningham was an embarrassment to the city in the past. A report in 2012 found that he sexually harassed female employees, most publicly on a business trip to San Diego.

He sought treatment for alcoholism, and by his actions in the past three years has earned a second full term on the City Council. He is focused on what is best for Tucson in the long run but also pragmatic.

He is proud of bringing major league soccer to town and has supported other economic development projects. He hopes to retool the KIDCO after-school recreation program as a public and private partnership with the help of the Legislature. The program is expensive for taxpayers but vital to many low-income working Tucson parents. He supports shifting the management of Sun Tran to a regional transportation authority.

In the months ahead, our municipality will face a pension crisis, a costly transit contract to fulfill, employees long overdue for wage increases, and the need for upgrades to city computer systems — all with a revenue pool that is unpredictable and inadequate. Cunningham is the best qualified of the two candidates to navigate these matters.

Lawton, the challenger, is not knowledgeable enough about city government to identify concrete solutions to Tucson’s problems. For instance, one of the first things he told us is that the city has about 900 police officers but needs 1,100. A possible way to pay for them, he said, is to charge a half-cent sales tax on gas, with the money dedicated to public safety. Would that cover the cost? we asked. He did not know.

We encourage Lawton, campus director at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, to get involved with one of the city’s many citizens committees as a means to share his private-business expertise.

Both candidates are native Tucsonans who speak about their love of the city and desire to see it improve. Cunningham is the one with the knowledge to turn that passion into positive results. We endorse Paul Cunningham.

When Regina Romero first ran for the Tucson City Council in 2007 in the west side Ward 1, she spoke about her commitment to community service, the need to include neighborhoods in decisions and empower residents. She’s held to those early promises, and in the past eight years grown into an effective council member who helped do difficult work to cut the general-fund budget and expanded development incentives.

The Arizona Daily Star endorses Regina Romero, a Democrat, for a third term. Her Republican opponent, Bill Hunt, is an amiable Raytheon engineer but lacks substantive ideas. For instance, he told us there’s duplication among city departments, but then was unable to name any. Hunt could be valuable on a civic commission or committee. We encourage him to become involved.

Romero has demonstrated mastery of the challenges that face local government. She knows the budget, and is realistic about what that means for services the public expects. The city has 1,000 fewer employees than it did in 2008, and each department has been cut by 20 percent, she said. “Everyone knows the city has a structural deficit,” she said in an interview with the Star editorial board. “In 2008 we had to take care of an urgent, bleeding patient in the emergency room.”

Romero advocated for the city’s Primary Jobs initiative, which offers incentives to businesses that invest at least $5 million and create a minimum of 25 high-paying jobs with health insurance. Tucson used the incentive package to help land the HomeGoods warehouse and distribution center.

With Romero on the council, Tucson has gotten the modern streetcar from idea to reality, and created incentives to encourage businesses to open in the city’s center.

Romero was on the wrong side of a key issue, however. She opposed helping Grand Canyon University when it was interested in building a campus west of downtown. The deal had far to go before becoming reality, but she fought against it, citing neighborhood opposition, and eventually the university turned its attention to Mesa.

The recent Sun Tran bus strike had just ended when we spoke with Romero and Hunt. They both talked about the need to prevent future work stoppages, but only Romero was willing to contemplate finding a dedicated funding source for public transit or public safety.

“I think it should be a community conversation,” Romero said, of the possibility of pursuing a property or sales tax to create a steady and reliable revenue stream for these specific ongoing needs. While we’re not endorsing any particular approach at this point, it is clear that city employees and residents would benefit from the stability a dedicated revenue source would provide. Doing so would help to give the City Council the room necessary to fix the structural deficits in the budget.

Regina Romero effectively represents Ward 1 and is the best choice in this election. We recommend her for another term.

The mayor’s leadership has helped get things done in Tucson. Jonathan Rothschild has had a hand in improving the broader economy of Tucson and the lives of individual Tucsonans.

When Jonathan Rothschild was elected Tucson’s mayor in 2011, citizens seethed over the awful condition of the streets.

Promising accountability, Rothschild persuaded voters to approve $100 million in road improvement bonds. Under his guidance our roads are getting fixed, under budget and ahead of schedule.

Four years ago, the city and the Rio Nuevo board were still fighting about who was to blame for wasting millions on failed downtown redevelopment projects. An experienced negotiator, Rothschild helped resolve the legal disputes that were plaguing Rio Nuevo.

The roads are not perfect, and the west end of downtown still languishes. But by any measure, progress is being made, thanks in large part to the mayor’s leadership.

Now seeking his second term, Rothschild, a Democrat, has no Republican opposition. The Southern Arizona Business Political Action Committee did not endorse Rothschild four years ago. But it supports him now and says he has effectively worked with the Tucson Metro Chamber to encourage economic development.

Indeed, Rothschild has succeeded in forming partnerships aimed at improving the broader economy and the lives of individual Tucsonans.

One of his first actions was to create the position of small-business advocate at City Hall. At a time when the state was still mired in the ugly politics of the SB1070 immigration law, he and other mayors on both sides of the border began working closely together to improve the regional economy.

Rothschild’s office is part of a coalition to end veteran homelessness by year-end and to increase the number of volunteer reading coaches in Tucson schools. He has walked door-to-door to encourage dropouts to return to high school.

The challenges the mayor will face in the next four years are great. To mention just a few: A huge pension fund shortfall will have to be filled; police must be given raises to bring them on par with other law-enforcement agencies; planning and development services functions,

long considered unfriendly to business, still need improvement.

Rothschild told us there are three ways to address the budget: aggressive economic development, annexation and the establishment of a yet-to-be determined revenue source. A new tax, perhaps in the form of a sales tax increase, would be dedicated to specific uses such as public safety, transit or preschools.

Any talk of taxes will be a “hard conversation, but it needs to be had,” Rothschild said. “People have to believe that if the city is given money, that it will spend it responsibly.”

With his record of competence and his ability to build coalitions, Rothschild is the right person to lead the conversation about how to face Tucson’s challenges together.