Prop 414 voter guide
Happy early ballot day, subscribers!
As part of our promise to ensure you know the ins and outs of your ballot — which should be arriving in your mailbox today or tomorrow — we’re breaking down Proposition 414 for Tucson voters.
The Tucson City Council crafted the half-cent sales tax increase, which is officially called the “Safe & Vibrant City,” last fall, and now you get to weigh in.
Tucsonans have a binary decision - approve the decade-long sales tax increase designed to generate $800 million to pay for public safety and “community resiliency” investments, or vote it down.
So bookmark today’s edition and share it with a friend, because it’s a complicated measure.
Also, we relied heavily on the city’s public website set up for Proposition 414 and the official voter information pamphlet titled “The Choice is Yours” to write today’s cheat sheet. If you want to go deeper, these are great resources to work with.
Prop 414: Safe & Vibrant City
What does it do?
The 10-year, half-cent sales tax measure that the Tucson City Council referred to voters in the March 11 mail-in election would increase the city’s sales tax to 9.2%,1 generating an estimated $80 million in annual revenues for the city.
After months of input from the community, city officials decided the money would go to roughly four dozen projects. About two-thirds of the funds are directly tied to public safety programs. Most of the rest is directed toward housing and other growing social safety net issues.
What’s the backstory?
Prop 414 is the culmination of a series of public meetings, discussions among the seven-member City Council, and surveys with both the public and city staff about how to address Tucson’s largest problems.
The result was the “Safe & Vibrant City” measure, which the city council referred to the ballot last fall for voters to ultimately decide its fate.
City officials say it’s necessary in part because the city is losing roughly $40 million a year in revenue due to a flat tax passed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey. They argue the city’s unrestricted general fund budget – approximately $750 million – cannot absorb the losses in revenue without impacting its services to residents.
For the last decade, the city has supplemented its budget with short-term, voter-approved funding measures, specifically short-term sales tax increases with sunset clauses, as well as bonds.
While Prop 414 is often described by its critics as a shotgun approach to the various issues, it does not address a number of issues facing the city, such as employee compensation, roads, major infrastructure projects like bridges or the fate of fare-free public transit.
What are the arguments for it?
Prop 414 would attempt to address a public safety crisis in Tucson by establishing dedicated funding for additional police officers, firefighters, community service officers, and 911 operators.
The city would also make significant investments in its public safety infrastructure, including building two new fire stations and purchasing new vehicles for both the police and fire departments, as well as replacing or adding new technology to improve response times to emergencies.
The measure would also set aside dedicated resources (about $14 million a year) to go to programs to make housing more affordable, help the homeless, and create a city-run detox center for those struggling with opioid addiction.
Another $13 million a year would be set aside for programs designed to reduce violence, improve early childhood education, expand workforce development, preserve cultural heritage and plant more drought-resistant trees, which the city refers to as “Neighborhood & Community Resilience.”
Local news also builds community resilience. Vote for better news today by clicking that button and subscribing!
You can find a full list of the programs funded by Prop 414 here. But here are a few highlights:
¡Somos Uno! Cultural heritage program: $1 million a year.
The city would use the funding to reinvest in culturally significant projects, as well as the creative community. For example, delayed maintenance on the Rattlesnake bridge.
Urban forest maintenance: $500,000 a year.
The city would plant more drought-tolerant trees, expanding urban shade areas and reducing the heat island effect. It would also provide more regular landscape maintenance to lower the chances of urban wildfires.
Upgrading air assets: $1.67 million a year.
The city would upgrade its aging fleet by replacing a 26-year-old helicopter with a fixed-wing plane, replacing another helicopter, and getting parts for its third helicopter.
Infill stations: $5.6 million a year.
At the bottom of today’s newsletter, we're taking a closer look at two new fire stations on the edges of the city.What are the arguments against it?
Sales tax regressively hurts the poorest among us at a time when roughly 19% of Tucsonans are living below the national poverty line.
There is no guarantee that spending millions on dozens of projects will resolve complex, chronic issues including drug addiction, homelessness, and a lack of affordable housing in Tucson.
Some voters are concerned there are not enough controls to ensure the funding will be used as intended, although the city would create a special commission to review spending and has some financial firewalls in place.
Who supports it?
Tucson and Pima County officials: Mayor Regina Romero and the entire Tucson City Council, Pima County Supervisor Adelita Grijalva and former Supervisors Sylvia Lee and Dan Eckstrom, Pima County Attorney Laura Conover, Pima County School Superintendent Dustin Williams, former Tucson City Court Magistrate Margarita Bernal, South Tucson Mayor Roxanna Valenzuela, and Pima County Democratic Party Chair Eric Robbins.
State and federal lawmakers: State Reps. Betty Villegas, Chris Mathis, and Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, former Congressman Ron Barber.
School board officials: TUSD Board President Jennifer Eckstrom, TUSD Board Members Dr. Ravi Shah and Natalie Luna Rose, Sunnyside School Board President Beki Quintero, and Amphitheater School Board Member Matt Kopec.
Unions and community groups: Yes on Prop 414 PAC, Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Arizona, Old Pueblo Community Services, Professional Firefighters of Arizona, Tucson Fire Fighters Association, Tucson Police Command Association, Tucson Police Officers Association, and the Pima County Democratic Party.
Who opposes it?
Unions and community groups: The Tucson Metro Chamber, Southern Arizona Leadership Council, No on Prop 414, Pima County Republican Party, Tucson Crime Free Coalition, and the Tucson Democratic Socialists of America.
State and federal lawmakers: Democratic state Reps. Alma Hernandez, Consuelo Hernandez, and state Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales.
Note: The city requires those who want to include a letter in the official information pamphlet mailed to voters to pay a fee of $240. Here are the letters in support of Prop 414. Here is the single letter against it.
Who’s winning the money race?
The city requires campaign committees to report on a quarterly basis and the next filing deadline is March 1. The two major campaigns registered with the City, Yes on Prop 414 - Safe & Vibrant City and the Tucson Metro Chamber's Political Action Committee (PAC) started collecting donations and putting up signs last month.
What does the polling say?
LOL. We are not aware of any polling on Prop. 414.
Important dates to remember
Ballots went out yesterday, Feb. 12.
Last day to request your ballot by mail is Feb. 26.
Last day to mail your ballot is March 5.
The election will be held on March 11.
As part of our ongoing series detailing how the City of Tucson wants to spend the estimated $800 million it would get if Proposition 414 passes next month, we look at two more fire stations that the city wants to build.
Prop 414 would spend $56.3 million over a decade to build an “infill” fire station on the city’s northwest side and a combined police department and fire station on the city’s southeast side, possibly near Rita Ranch.
Increased call volume and the need for faster response times in these areas are the motivations behind the two new proposals, said Tucson City Manager Tim Thomure.
The city knew that these areas were growing years ago, but it made the decision not to include them as part of Proposition 101 in 2017, which set aside $150 million for vehicles, equipment, and facilities for the Tucson fire and police departments.
The voter-approved measure covered a total of seven fire stations, building two new facilities and remodeling the other five stations.
“One could argue when (Prop 101) was passed whether we needed the new Southeast complex. That might be a more recent conversation, but I'd say generally 101 didn't meet all the needs we had,” Thomure said.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has a goal of a five-minute response time for emergency medical calls, but city officials acknowledge that the city is struggling to meet those standards.
The state charges a sales tax rate of 5.6%, then each municipality adds on its own sales taxes. So that combined 9.2% for Tucson shoppers includes 5.6% in state sales tax, 0.5% in Pima County and 3.1% from Tucson (up from the current 2.6%), if Prop 414 passes.
I appreciate your coverage of Proposition 414 and the mention of letters of support and against in your recent newsletter. However, I noticed that while you indicated the amount each submission costs, the specific deadline for submitting these letters was not included—and, in fact, does not seem to be publicly available. My understanding is that it was sometime in early/mid-December. I've called the City Clerk's office to verify that information and have not heard back yet.
Given that many community members may want to participate in the discussion, but may not have realized how early the deadline was, this lack of transparency is concerning.
Ensuring that deadlines for public input are accessible and widely shared is essential for a fair and inclusive process. I hope this can be addressed so that all voices have the opportunity to be heard in future discussions.
It is disappointing to see such superficial reporting from an 'independent' outlet. At least you admitted you "relied heavily on the city’s public website set up for Proposition 414 and the official voter information pamphlet." But that's not what we pay a subscription for. For you to reprint a hyperbolic and misleading statement like, "Prop 414 would attempt to address a public safety crisis in Tucson" is not just sloppy, but irresponsible. I know you guys can do the research. Like, maybe check this website from the U of A that shows exactly where Tucson's crime rates rank alongside other regional cities: "Tucson’s violent crime rate fell by 27.1% from a high of 649.7 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2005 to 473.5 in 2020. This is down from Tucson’s violent crime rate of 499.0 in 2017, which was a peak after a thirteen-year low in 2015." https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/quality-place/public-safety. In other words, there is no "public safety" crisis. There sure as hell is a housing crisis, but this initiative does virtually nothing about it. You undoubtedly are familiar with the City budget, but didn't bother to mention that TPD already gets the single largest share of it--30% of the total budget. That's far above the measly 1% budgeted for housing and community development. Finally, you accept at face value the narrative promoted by the City that this funding is for “community resiliency” investments when that's all just window dressing. The numbers are clearly provided. Out of the $80m in the sales tax proposal, $25m would go to TPD (31%) and a meager $7.75m (less than 10%) to actual housing initiatives. A significant portion of the TPD money will go to increased surveillance, including an airplane and the CSARC which is describe as an "analytical crime center" that will incorporate 360-degree cameras, automated license plate reader, and drones. It will allow TPD access to private security cameras. https://law-enforcement.govciooutlook.com/cxoinsights/-tucson-police-department-invests-in-realtime-data-hub-for-officer-safety-nid-2229.html. At no point did you bother to ask the basic questions, "Does Tucson really need all this additional money for police?" "Shouldn't there be more invested in the things that the City says this initiative is for?" and, "What might happen to all this surveillance information in Trump's America? Could this be used to assist in mass deportations?" Posing those questions (and doing the most basic amount of research to provide independent answers) is what your subscribers expect from you, not regurgitated press releases.