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 βwantβ than βneed,β each proposition includes, on balance, improvements that are widely beneficial and should be supported. The central jobs of local government β parks, infrastructure and roads β 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 βyesβ on some while saying βnoβ to others. If all pass, the owner of an owner-occupied home valued by the assessor at $120,693 β the median β 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 βSonoran Corridor Highwayβ that would connect Interstate 19 to Interstate 10 south of Tucson. Itβs 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 Childrenβs 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 countyβs 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 thatβs how bonds work β itβs 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 Generalβs 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 theyβre 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 isnβt 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: βIf 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.β
This offers protection against the county scrapping projects to favor others.
While the seven bond proposals arenβt perfect, we support their passage. They address needs, as well as wants, but on balance the needs win out.
