Arizona 2026 Ballot Notes

What it does

Since 1998 Maricopa County has collected a sales tax of one-fifth of one cent (0.2%) on most purchases to pay for jails. It expires in March 2027 ¹. A 2025 state law (Laws 2025, Chapter 155) lets the county ask voters for a replacement at the same rate, for up to 20 years ¹. The money can go only to building, renovating, running and maintaining adult and juvenile jails, plus programs meant to cut jail costs; in practice that has meant detention staff, correctional health, and adult and juvenile probation ^{1 2}. The Board of Supervisors can lower the rate later but cannot raise it ¹.

Yes

A Yes vote keeps the 0.2% county jail sales tax for up to 20 more years after it expires in March 2027.

No

A No vote lets the jail sales tax expire in March 2027, leaving the county to cover jail and probation costs from its general budget.

Required to go to voters. A new county sales tax needs voter approval. The Legislature authorized the vote in 2025 and the Board of Supervisors referred it to the ballot on January 5, 2026 ¹. Source

Taxes and bonds. Same rate as today: 0.2%, or 20 cents on a $100 purchase. The county projects about $313 million in the first full year (FY2027-28), growing about 4.7% a year. The current tax has raised about $3.25 billion since March 2007 ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• It is not a new tax or a rate increase. It continues a rate voters approved in 1998 and again in 2002 ¹.
• Running jails, correctional health and probation is required by law. The police unions say a citizen committee's review found 99% of detention-fund spending is required by law, court order or the constitution. If the tax expires, the county would have to raise property taxes, cut other services, or both ^{1 2}.
• The money is legally restricted to jail and related public safety uses and cannot be moved to unrelated spending. The supervisors add that paying as it goes keeps the county from borrowing to run its jails ¹.
• The old jails need work: plumbing at Lower Buckeye and Fourth Avenue, renovation at Estrella, and replacement of the 1980s-era Towers Jail ².

Against

• Twenty years is a long blank check. Voters get no say again until 2047, while the money grows an estimated 4.7% a year ¹.
• The jail system has a record of in-custody deaths (39 in 2025, by the Sheriff's own count) that the measure does nothing to address ³.
• Locking in a dedicated revenue stream for detention makes it easier to keep jailing people who are awaiting trial or have low-level charges, instead of funding diversion and treatment.
• A regressive sales tax falls hardest on lower-income households, who spend more of what they earn on taxable goods.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The county estimates the tax would bring in about $313 million in its first full year, rising about 4.7% a year with population and retail growth ¹. A maintenance-of-effort rule requires the county to keep putting its own general-fund money into jails, adjusted for inflation ¹.

What it does

Authorizes Mesa to issue up to $150 million in general obligation bonds for fire, medical, police and other public safety facilities, communications, equipment, technology and land ¹. The city's project list: $61.5M for fire, medical and police training facilities, $40.9M to demolish and rebuild the West Mesa Service Center fleet and warehouse facilities, $28.7M to renovate and expand the Central Police Station, $10.1M to upgrade the TOPAZ public safety radio network, $5M for land for future fire stations, and $1.5M in issuance costs ². Each bond series can run up to 25 years and is repaid with secondary property taxes ^{1 3}. Projects still go back to the City Council for approval ¹.

Yes

Mesa may borrow up to $150 million for public safety buildings, radios, equipment and land, repaid with secondary property taxes.

No

Mesa may not issue these bonds; the projects would wait for other funding or a future bond election.

Required to go to voters. Arizona cities must get voter approval to issue general obligation bonds backed by property taxes. The Mesa City Council called the election in Resolution No. 12538. Source

Taxes and bonds. Questions 1 and 2 share one tax estimate: an average added secondary property tax of $0.2226 per $100 of assessed value over about 26 years. That's about $22 a year per $100,000 of a home's taxable (limited) value, $53.91 a year on the median Mesa home ($194,975 taxable value), or $69.13 a year on a $250,000 home. Split by dollar amount, Q1 is a little over half of that. Total cost of both questions with interest: about $459 million. Source

Arguments

For

• Mesa's police and fire recruits need somewhere to train year-round, close to home, instead of borrowing time and space from other cities ¹.
• The TOPAZ radio network carries every 911 response, and the fleet facility that maintains fire apparatus and patrol cars is more than 50 years old ¹.
• Buying land now for future fire stations keeps response times down as the city grows ¹.
• Bond money is restricted by law to buildings and equipment, never salaries, and every project returns to the council for approval ¹.

Against

• No one filed an argument against Q1 in the city pamphlet ¹.
• Critics of police spending will note that $28.7 million goes to expanding a police station and part of a $61.5 million training campus serves police, money that buys capacity for policing rather than alternatives to it ².
• With interest, the two city bonds cost about $459 million, and Mesa voters are also being asked for a $449 million school bond on the same ballot ¹.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The city estimates Questions 1 and 2 together will cost about $459.2 million in principal and interest, sold in six series, at an average added tax rate of $0.2226 per $100 of assessed value ¹.

What it does

Authorizes Mesa to issue up to $135 million in general obligation bonds for arterial street improvements, pavement reconstruction, streetlights, traffic signals, bridges, medians, shared-use paths and related land ¹. The city's project list: $66.8M for five shared-use paths, $49M for street safety work on Mesa Drive (Main to Brown), Broadway (Stapley to Gilbert) and Higley (Broadway to McKellips), $16.9M for a bridge over the East Maricopa Floodway and RWCD canals east of Power Road, and $1.5M in issuance costs ². Bonds are repaid with secondary property taxes ^{1 3}.

Yes

Mesa may borrow up to $135 million for street rebuilds, paths and a bridge, repaid with secondary property taxes.

No

Mesa may not issue these bonds; the projects would wait for other funding or a future bond election.

Required to go to voters. Arizona cities must get voter approval to issue general obligation bonds backed by property taxes. The Mesa City Council called the election in Resolution No. 12538. Source

Taxes and bonds. Questions 1 and 2 share one tax estimate: an average added secondary property tax of $0.2226 per $100 of assessed value over about 26 years. That's about $22 a year per $100,000 of a home's taxable (limited) value, $53.91 a year on the median Mesa home, or $69.13 on a $250,000 home. Split by dollar amount, Q2 is a little under half of that. Source

Arguments

For

• It fixes what Mesa already built: worn pavement, medians, sidewalks and ramps on three corridors residents complain about most ¹.
• Shared-use paths let kids walk and bike to school and give families a way to reach parks and jobs without a car ¹.
• Fire engines and ambulances use the same streets, so safer, less congested roads speed emergency response ¹.
• The projects came out of the city's Capital Improvement Program and each one returns to the council for approval ¹.

Against

• No one filed an argument against Q2 in the city pamphlet ¹.
• Combined with Q1 and the school district's Prop 419, Mesa property owners are being asked to take on a lot of new debt on one ballot ¹.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The city estimates Questions 1 and 2 together will cost about $459.2 million in principal and interest, at an average added tax rate of $0.2226 per $100 of assessed value ¹.

What it does

Rewrites Mesa City Charter Section 209(A). The council would fix the time and place of regular meetings by ordinance under state law, without the current minimum of two regular meetings a month ¹. Public notice of regular and special meetings, and the purposes allowed for executive (closed) sessions, would follow state law instead of the charter's own list ¹. The council's ordinance says the goal is flexibility to hold fewer than two regular meetings in some months ^{1 2}. City code currently sets meetings for the first and third Mondays at 5:30 p.m. ¹.

Yes

The charter's two-meetings-a-month minimum goes away and meeting notice and closed-session rules defer to state law.

No

The charter keeps requiring at least two regular council meetings every month, with its current notice language.

Required to go to voters. Changes to a city charter in Arizona must be approved by the city's voters (and then the governor). The council adopted Ordinance No. 6017 on June 1, 2026 to send it to the ballot. Source

Arguments

For

• The charter's notice and executive-session language doesn't fully match Arizona's open meeting law; pointing to state law removes conflicts and future amendments ¹.
• The council can skip a regular meeting in months when its business can be handled in one, or during scheduled breaks ¹.

Against

• It removes a guaranteed minimum of regular meetings, the main venue where residents can speak to the council on the record ¹.
• The cleanup portions could have been offered without dropping the meeting floor ¹.

Who's where

What it does

Amends Mesa City Charter Section 211. After an ordinance is introduced and again after adoption, the clerk would post it on the city website and at one physical location, instead of three public places ^{1 2}. The charter's definition of "publish," now printing in a newspaper of general circulation, would become printing, displaying or otherwise making available under state law ¹. The council says this follows a 2021 state law change that cut required postings from three to one and added website posting, and would let Mesa use cheaper publication methods if the Legislature allows them ¹.

Yes

Ordinances must be posted on Mesa's website and at one physical location, and publication follows state law instead of requiring newspaper printing.

No

The charter keeps requiring posting in three public places and newspaper publication of ordinance summaries and adopted ordinances.

Required to go to voters. Changes to a city charter in Arizona must be approved by the city's voters (and then the governor). The council adopted Ordinance No. 6016 on June 1, 2026 to send it to the ballot. Source

Arguments

For

• Posting every ordinance online gives residents more notice than state law requires, since the state rule covers only ordinances with penalties ¹.
• It cuts the cost of paying newspapers to print ordinances twice, once as a summary and once in full ¹.

Against

• It weakens rules voters themselves put in the charter by initiative in 1992 ¹.
• Defining "publish" by reference to state law hands future changes in Mesa's notice standard to the Legislature ¹.

Who's where

What it does

Authorizes Mesa Unified School District to issue up to $449 million in general obligation bonds to build and renovate schools, improve grounds, and buy furniture, equipment and technology ¹. The district says about 70% would go to building infrastructure (HVAC, roofing, plumbing, electrical, structural), about 10% to safety, security and technology such as secure front lobbies and cameras, about 15% to projects chosen by individual schools, and 5% to career and technical education ^{2 3}. The district serves about 53,000 students in buildings averaging about 40 years old ¹. Bonds would be sold in phases through 2030 and repaid over no more than 20 years each ¹. Planned projects include major renovations at Red Mountain High and replacement of the Carson Junior High and Emerson Elementary campuses ².

Yes

Mesa Public Schools may borrow up to $449 million for building repairs, renovations, safety and technology, repaid with secondary property taxes.

No

The district may not issue the bonds; existing bond debt would keep paying down and capital repairs would rely on limited state funding.

Required to go to voters. Arizona school districts need voter approval to issue general obligation bonds repaid with property taxes. The governing board called the election on May 14, 2026. Source

Taxes and bonds. Estimated average bond tax rate: $0.8067 per $100 of assessed value. That's $80.67 a year per $100,000 of a home's taxable (limited) value, about $170 a year ($14 a month) on the district's average home ($210,422), or $223.83 a year for 13 years on a $250,000 home. Because current bonds are retiring, the district projects the combined bond rate holding at roughly $0.98, near the current level, through the program. Total cost with interest: about $598.6 million. Source

Arguments

For

• Schools averaging 40 years old need HVAC, roofs, plumbing and electrical systems replaced, and state capital funding isn't enough to cover it ¹.
• It funds secure front lobbies, updated cameras and other safety infrastructure, plus upgrades to career and technical education programs ².
• The district projects the bond tax rate will stay at or below today's level throughout the program ².
• Bond money can only be spent on capital projects, not salaries ².

Against

• With interest, the bond costs about $600 million while enrollment is falling; opponents say the district should consolidate underused campuses before borrowing ¹.
• Some argue the district hasn't tied the spending to measurable academic gains, citing low reading and math proficiency ¹.
• If the bond fails, existing district bond debt would be paid off around the end of the decade, letting the tax drop ¹.
• Property taxes get passed on to renters, which some argue hurts housing affordability ¹.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The county superintendent's pamphlet estimates total principal and interest of $598.6 million at an assumed 5% interest rate, with an average added bond tax rate of $0.8067 per $100 of assessed value ¹.

What it does

Authorizes the governing board to sell, lease or exchange all or part of five district parcels and use the proceeds to buy school sites, build or improve schools, buy technology or student transportation vehicles, or for other permitted capital spending ¹. The parcels: McKellips Learning Center (325 E. McKellips Rd., about 2.96 acres), Riverview (1731 N. Country Club Dr., about 6.6 acres), Student Service Center (1025 N. Country Club Dr., about 3.9 acres), Administrative Service Center (63 E. Main St., about 0.41 acres) and Sunridge Learning Center (737 W. Guadalupe Rd., about 3.22 acres) ². Approval does not require the district to sell anything ^{2 3}.

Yes

The MPS board may sell, lease or exchange the five listed properties and use the money for capital needs.

No

The district keeps the properties and cannot sell, lease or exchange them without another vote.

Required to go to voters. Arizona law requires school districts to get voter approval to sell, lease or exchange certain district property. Source

Arguments

For

• It lets the district stop maintaining underused administrative buildings and put the value back into schools ¹.
• Proceeds are limited to capital uses and the measure carries no additional tax ¹.

Against

• No arguments against Prop 420 were submitted ¹.
• Once sold, public land in central Mesa is gone, and the measure sets no requirement for how it's used next ¹.

Who's where

What it does

Arizona's constitution limits how much a city can spend each year using a state formula based on 1979-80 spending levels, adjusted for population and inflation ^{1 2}. Voters can replace that with a local alternative, called Home Rule, for four years at a time ². Prop 430 continues Chandler's Home Rule for fiscal years 2027-28 through 2030-31; each year the council sets the limit at a public hearing, and it equals the adopted budget ^{1 3}. It does not raise any tax or let the city spend money it doesn't collect ².

Yes

Chandler keeps setting its own spending limit through the annual budget for four more years.

No

Chandler falls under the state formula and must cut roughly $232 million a year in spending, even though its revenue stays the same.

Required to go to voters. The Arizona Constitution (Article IX, Section 20) only allows a city to use a local spending limit if its voters approve it, and the approval has to be renewed every four years ^{3 2}. Source

Taxes and bonds. No tax change either way. The city's revenue estimates are identical under Home Rule and under the state limit; only how much of it may legally be spent differs. City property tax stays capped by the state constitution ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• The state formula is based on 1979-80 service levels and doesn't account for the city Chandler has become, with its modern infrastructure and expanded services ¹.
• Failing would force about $232 million a year in cuts to fire, police, parks, libraries, and street maintenance, plus canceled capital projects, while residents keep paying the same taxes ¹.
• The spending limit is still set publicly every year, after a hearing, and can't exceed the money the city actually takes in ^{3 2}.

Against

• A hard, formula-driven cap is a blunt check on government growth; Home Rule hands the spending decision to the same council that writes the budget ³.
• Voters only get to weigh in every four years, and in between, the limit is whatever the council's budget says it is ².

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The city estimates spending authority of $1.13 billion (FY2028), $1.01 billion (FY2029), $1.04 billion (FY2030) and $1.08 billion (FY2031) under Home Rule, versus $872 million, $784 million, $814 million and $849 million under the state limit. Revenue is the same in both cases ¹.

What it does

The charter currently requires the council to elect a vice mayor, who fills in when the mayor is absent, within 31 days after taking office ¹. Prop 431 changes that to the first regular council meeting in January of each year, which codifies the council's long-standing practice ^{1 3}. It came from the City Charter Amendment Resident Advisory Committee ¹.

Yes

The vice mayor is chosen at the council's first regular meeting each January.

No

The charter keeps the current within-31-days language.

Required to go to voters. Any change to a city charter in Arizona has to be approved by that city's voters. The council referred this one on the advice of a resident charter committee ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• It gives the city a clear, predictable date for choosing the vice mayor ².
• It matches how the council has actually handled the selection for years ³.

Against

• It fixes a problem that wasn't causing trouble, and adds one more item to an already long ballot ³.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

None identified.

What it does

Under the current charter, a council member whose term runs past the next mayoral swearing-in must resign to run for mayor when they take out nomination papers from the city clerk, or 105 days before the primary, whichever comes first ¹. Prop 432 changes the trigger to filing nomination papers with the clerk, matching A.R.S. 38-296 ^{1 2}. The change also uses gender-neutral wording and clarifies how the council fills the resulting vacancy ¹.

Yes

A council member running for mayor resigns upon filing nomination papers with the city clerk.

No

The charter keeps the current take-out-papers language.

Required to go to voters. City charter changes require voter approval. A resident advisory committee recommended this one unanimously ^{1 3}. Source

Arguments

For

• It brings the charter in line with state law and with how the city already operates ^{2 3}.
• Clear rules reduce the chance of legal fights over when a candidate has to give up a seat ³.

Against

• The city already follows state law here, so some council members questioned whether it needed to be on the ballot at all ³.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

None identified.

What it does

The charter now requires the council to tentatively approve an ordinance, have the clerk publish it, and then consider it again within 30 days before final adoption, with the full text published twice afterward ^{1 4}. Prop 433 removes the tentative-approval and pre-adoption publication steps: an ordinance would just be placed on a council agenda by title with notice of the meeting, and interested people would still get a chance to be heard ⁴. After adoption it would be published once instead of twice ⁴. City staff plan a separate code change keeping two readings for fees, penalties, and new offenses, but that isn't part of this measure ³.

Yes

The council could adopt most ordinances at a single meeting.

No

The charter keeps requiring two council considerations for every ordinance.

Required to go to voters. Changing the city charter requires voter approval. The resident charter committee recommended this unanimously, and the council referred it ^{1 3}. Source

Arguments

For

• It streamlines the legislative process so routine ordinances don't need to sit for weeks ^{2 3}.
• The city plans to keep two readings in its code for the ordinances that matter most to residents, such as fees, penalties, and new offenses ³.
• Each ordinance must still be on a published agenda, and the public still gets to be heard ⁴.

Against

• The second reading gives residents time to learn about and respond to an ordinance before it's final ³.
• The promised exceptions live in city code, which a future council can change without asking voters ³.
• Post-adoption publication drops from two printings to one ⁴.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

None identified.

What it does

The charter now says the city manager and all department heads must become Chandler residents within six months of appointment, and all city employees must live within a reasonable radius of the city ¹. Prop 434 keeps the requirement for the city manager and other employees appointed directly by the council (currently the city attorney, city clerk and city magistrate), extends their deadline to 12 months, and removes it for department heads ^{1 2}. It changes reasonable radius to reasonable distance for all employees ¹. Directors' residency would then be handled by city management policy rather than the charter ³.

Yes

Only the city manager and council-appointed officers must live in Chandler (within 12 months); department heads, including police and fire chiefs, no longer must.

No

The charter keeps requiring the city manager and all department heads to move to Chandler within six months.

Required to go to voters. Charter changes require voter approval. The council referred this after a resident advisory committee recommended a version of it 5-2 ^{1 3}. Source

Arguments

For

• Forcing every director to move can hurt recruiting and retention, especially for households with two working spouses ³.
• The city's top council-appointed officers would still have to live in Chandler, and they'd get a more realistic 12 months to move ^{1 2}.
• Chandler is a big city now; a proximity standard for directors fits a metro where city lines are a few blocks away ³.

Against

• The ballot's descriptive title never mentions that department heads lose the residency requirement ¹.
• Leaders, especially police and fire chiefs, should live in the community they serve ³.
• The change arrives in the middle of a dispute over whether the current police chief actually complies with the existing rule ⁵.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

None identified.

What it does

A franchise is a contract that lets a utility use public streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way for its equipment ². Question 1 grants APS a non-exclusive franchise from January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2051 to build, maintain, and operate its electric system in Chandler's rights-of-way ¹. In return APS pays the city 2% of gross revenue from its commodity and basic service charges to customers inside city limits, plus regular city taxes ³. The agreement also sets rules for relocating lines, insurance, audits, and the city's use of APS poles for streetlights and public-safety communications ³. APS currently operates under a 25-year franchise that is about to expire ².

Yes

APS gets a new 25-year franchise to use Chandler's rights-of-way, and the city keeps collecting a 2% franchise fee.

No

APS keeps providing service, but without a franchise agreement governing its work in city streets; the city and APS would have to negotiate and bring a new deal back to voters ².

Required to go to voters. The Arizona Constitution and the Chandler City Charter require voter approval of a utility franchise ^{1 2}. Source

Taxes and bonds. No new tax. The 2% franchise fee is collected from APS customers inside city limits and passed to the city ³; the city says approving the franchise doesn't raise electric rates ². Source

Arguments

For

• The franchise sets clear rules for how APS builds and repairs equipment in city streets and restores them afterward, including during outages ^{2 1}.
• The 2% fee funds general city services like road work and public facilities ¹.
• The City Council approved it unanimously, and it doesn't decide who provides your electricity ¹.

Against

• Twenty-five years is a long time to lock in terms with a monopoly utility while energy technology and city needs keep changing ¹.
• The 2% fee is collected from APS customers themselves, so it works more like a small utility tax than a payment from APS ³.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

Chandler received $529,376 (FY2022-23), $537,763 (FY2023-24), $638,080 (FY2024-25) and $636,768 (FY2025-26) in APS franchise fees, and budgets $650,000 for FY2026-27 ².

What it does

Creates a new 0.5% city transaction privilege (sales) and use tax starting Jan. 1, 2027, raising Tempe's city rate from 1.8% to 2.3% ². Food for home consumption from grocery and convenience stores stays at 1.8% ². The ballot language designates 0.3% for police, fire, emergency operations, safety programs and crime prevention through environmental design; 0.1% for transit and bike and pedestrian projects; and 0.1% for early childhood care and preschool, with access going first to Tempe residents, then Tempe school teachers, city employees and people who work for Tempe businesses ³. The ballot text sets no expiration date ³. City staff project about $30.3 million a year for public safety and about $10.1 million each for transit and early childhood ⁵.

Yes

Tempe's sales tax rises to 2.3% on most purchases starting in 2027, with the new half cent split among public safety, transit and preschool.

No

Tempe's sales tax stays at 1.8% and the city must close its budget gap some other way.

Required to go to voters. Tempe's existing sales tax rates were approved by voters, and the City Council referred the new half cent to voters under City Charter Section 5.02 by adopting Resolution No. R2026.48 on May 14, 2026. Source

Taxes and bonds. Adds 0.5% to taxable purchases in Tempe: 5 cents on $10, 50 cents on $100. Groceries for home consumption are excluded and stay at 1.8%. The current 1.8% city rate is 1.2% general fund, 0.5% transit and 0.1% arts and culture. No sunset. City staff estimate it raises about $50.5 million a year. Source

Arguments

For

• The Legislature's repeal of the residential rental tax and other state changes left Tempe about $25 million a year short, and the city has already made $19 million in temporary cuts ^{4 5 7}.
• Groceries are excluded, and visitors, commuters and students who shop in Tempe share the cost instead of residents carrying it alone ⁴.
• It funds transit, the streetcar extension into Mesa and the Upstream Dam bike and pedestrian bridge; bike advocates warn those projects stall and federal matching money is lost without it ⁴.
• Supporters say Tempe has fewer police officers than in 2009 and has added only one fire station since 2005 while the daytime population has grown ⁴.

Against

• Sales taxes are regressive, and about 16% of Tempe residents live at or below the poverty line, opponents note ⁴.
• It would raise about $50 million a year, roughly double the $24 to $25 million shortfall it's meant to fix, with no end date ^{4 5 8}.
• Bundling police money with preschool and transit forces voters to take all three or none, and there's no citizen oversight committee ⁴.
• Some residents don't want to give more to a police department facing use-of-force incidents and lawsuits ⁶. Others point to city spending like the $2 million Mill Avenue gateway sign ^{4 6}.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

City staff project the 0.3% public safety share at about $30.3 million a year and the transit and early childhood shares at about $10.1 million each ⁵. If it fails, the city rate stays at 1.8% ².

What it does

Prop 417 grants Rose Valley Water Company a non-exclusive 25-year franchise to build, maintain and operate water distribution and transmission lines in Peoria's public rights-of-way within its state-certificated service area, including future annexations ^{1 5}. Rose Valley pays the city 2% of gross receipts from water sales inside city limits, plus permit fees and city taxes ¹. The agreement requires city approval for work in the right-of-way, restoration of streets, $5 million in liability insurance, and cost-sharing rules for moving pipes ¹. If approved, it takes effect December 1, 2026 ².

Yes

Rose Valley Water gets a 25-year franchise to use Peoria's rights-of-way, and the city collects a 2% franchise fee.

No

The franchise is denied; Rose Valley keeps serving customers under a temporary agreement until a franchise is approved at a later election ².

Required to go to voters. Arizona law (A.R.S. 9-502) requires voter approval for a utility franchise; the council deemed it beneficial and referred it on April 21, 2026 ^{1 3}. Source

Taxes and bonds. No new tax. The 2% franchise fee applies to Rose Valley's water sales inside Peoria; the city says the fee keeps the cost of Rose Valley's use of the streets from falling on other residents ². Source

Arguments

For

• It formalizes Rose Valley's use of city rights-of-way under clear permitting, repair and insurance rules ^{1 3}.
• The 2% fee compensates the city for the use of its streets, in line with other utility agreements ^{2 3}.
• The city keeps its right to buy or condemn the system, and the franchise adds no value to the company in a buyout ¹.

Against

• Twenty-five years is a long commitment to a private, out-of-state-owned water company ^{1 4}.
• No one filed an argument either way and the city hasn't published a revenue estimate, so voters are asked to approve a 25-year deal without a dollar figure for what Peoria gets ¹.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The city has not published a revenue estimate for the fee. Rose Valley deposited the estimated $121,254.24 election cost with the City Clerk ¹.

What it does

Prop 418 would let Avondale borrow up to $55 million through general obligation bonds, repaid with secondary property taxes, for fire station and training facilities, public safety and court facilities, equipment, vehicles, communications systems and land ¹. The city's planned projects are a southern Avondale fire/police substation, a new public safety headquarters, a police firearms training facility, an expansion of the main police station, and a City Court office expansion ^{2 4}. Bonds could be issued in series with terms up to 25 years, and the council must approve each sale ^{1 2}. It is a near-identical rerun of 2025's Proposition 405 ¹.

Yes

Avondale may sell up to $55 million in bonds for police, fire and court facilities, repaid with secondary property taxes.

No

The city can't issue these bonds; it would have to postpone the projects or find other money ¹.

Required to go to voters. Arizona law (A.R.S. 35-452) requires voter approval for a city to issue general obligation bonds, and the election must be held in November. The council called it 7-0 on May 4, 2026 ^{1 2}. Source

Taxes and bonds. Avondale's combined property tax rate is $1.4592 per $100 of assessed value ($0.5813 primary, $0.8779 secondary) ¹. The state-required ballot wording says the bonds will result in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the debt ¹, while the city says the rate won't rise because new bonds are timed as old ones are paid off ². Both are true in their way: the rate stays flat, but the secondary tax that would otherwise shrink as old debt retires keeps going. Staff estimates the city can issue about $123 million over 11 years at the current rate ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• A southern Avondale fire and police substation would improve response times and support big events at Phoenix Raceway ².
• Avondale has no firearms training facility of its own and sends officers to Glendale, where access is getting tighter ².
• The court has outgrown its space, with staff working in filing rooms, and the bonds can be issued without raising the property tax rate ².

Against

• Voters approve a lump sum, and the council sets priorities later; staff says $55 million may not fund all five projects ².
• Most of the package is police facilities, including a firearms range estimated at $10 to 12 million ².
• Keeping the rate flat means passing up a lower tax bill as older bonds are retired ².

Who's where

Fiscal impact

City staff says Avondale can issue roughly $123 million in GO bonds over 11 years while keeping its current combined rate of $1.4592 per $100 of assessed value; if the bond fails, capital projects would be postponed or other revenue found ¹.

What it does

Prop 426 permanently raises the town's 1979-80 base spending limit by $3,940,190 in 1980 dollars, which works out to about $20 million today ¹. For 2027-28 that lifts the limit from $51,702,050 to $71,702,050 ¹. The town says it would use the room for public safety, streets and other budget needs, and that it still has to adopt a balanced budget every year ¹. Town voters last raised the base in 2016, and before that in 2000 and 2006 ¹.

Yes

A Yes vote permanently raises the town's base spending limit by $3,940,190 (about $20 million a year in today's dollars).

No

A No vote keeps the current state-imposed spending limit.

Required to go to voters. The Arizona Constitution requires voter approval to change a town's base expenditure limit. The Town Council voted 5-2 to refer it ^{1 2}. Source

Arguments

For

• The 1980 formula tracks population and general inflation, not the resorts, construction, visitors and pass-through traffic that drive the town's costs ¹.
• The town says revenue already exceeds projected spending, so this raises no taxes ¹.
• Without it the town may have to delay infrastructure or issue bonds, which adds interest costs ¹.

Against

• Prop 427 could free up room by moving capital projects outside the cap, which one councilmember argues would make this permanent increase unnecessary ¹.
• Council members Anna Thomasson and Scott Moore voted against sending it to voters ².

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The town estimates the 2027-28 limit would rise from $51,702,050 to $71,702,050, paid for with existing state and local revenue ¹.

What it does

Prop 427 lets the council move future surplus revenue (only money collected after the measure passes, not existing savings) into a dedicated capital fund ¹. Spending from that fund on land, buildings and infrastructure would not count against the state spending limit ¹. The town's capital plan covers projects over $100,000 such as sewer repairs, drainage, power line undergrounding, street work, and police and fire facilities ¹. Councilmember Anna Thomasson says it revives a model the town first used in 1993 ¹.

Yes

A Yes vote lets the town exclude capital projects and land purchases paid from the new fund from its spending limit.

No

A No vote keeps capital spending counted against the state-imposed limit.

Required to go to voters. The Arizona Constitution allows this exemption only with voter approval. The council referred it on Feb. 12, 2026 ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• It pays for infrastructure with cash the town already has instead of borrowing ¹.
• Moving the current $17 million capital budget outside the cap would free that much room for regular operations ¹.

Against

• No arguments against were filed. A skeptic could note it gives the council more room to spend without a fixed ceiling on the capital side.

Who's where

What it does

Starting Jan. 1, 2027, Cave Creek would add a 0.25% town sales tax, taking the town rate from 3.00% to 3.25% ¹. The revenue can be used only to buy state trust land zoned Open Space Recreation or Open Space Conservation inside town limits, or to pay off bonds for that purchase, and not for trails or maintenance ¹. The tax ends after 25 years or when the purchase is paid off, whichever comes first ¹. The council voted unanimously on March 31, 2026 to pursue buying the 4,005 acres, with an excise tax revenue bond, grants and donations as funding options ².

Yes

A Yes vote adds a 0.25% town sales tax, dedicated to buying open-space state trust land, starting in 2027.

No

A No vote rejects the tax and leaves the council to pay for the land purchase another way.

Citizen initiative. Put on the ballot by petition from the Acquire State Land PAC ¹. Source

Taxes and bonds. 0.25% added to the town sales tax (1 cent per $4), estimated by supporters at about $1.1 million a year ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• It locks in a dedicated way to pay for the land, so a future council cannot change course and sell it to developers ¹.
• Supporters say it pays off the land debt in about half the time, with about half the interest, of other financing ¹.
• The land would roughly double the Spur Cross Conservation Area and protect wildlife corridors, dark skies and groundwater recharge ¹.

Against

• It writes one financing method into the town code, which could limit the council if grants or other funding turn out to be cheaper ¹.
• Sales taxes fall hardest on lower-income residents.

Who's where

What it does

Prop 416 permanently raises Tolleson's 1979-80 base spending limit by $39,033,506, to $40 million, starting in fiscal 2028; it then grows with population and inflation ¹. The city estimates its 2027-28 limit would rise from $8,140,101 to $336,891,934 ¹. The money would come from existing federal, state and local revenue, mostly local sources ¹. Tolleson currently uses home rule, last approved in 2024; if 416 fails, the city keeps that for two more years and would need another vote in 2028 ².

Yes

A Yes vote permanently resets Tolleson's base spending limit to $40 million, adjusted each year.

No

A No vote keeps the 1980-based limit, leaving the city to seek another home rule vote.

Required to go to voters. Changing the base limit requires voter approval. The council referred it with Resolution 2635 on April 15, 2026 ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• It does not raise or create any property or sales tax ¹.
• Without some override, the city could not spend revenue it already collects, with what the one filed argument calls a devastating effect on services and employees ¹.

Against

• No arguments against were filed ¹. A skeptic might prefer home rule's four-year check-in with voters over a permanent change ².

Who's where

Fiscal impact

The city projects about $6.2M in federal, $12.8M in state and $317.9M in local revenue would fund the added authority in FY2028 ¹.

What it does

Gila Bend voters approved home rule in 2022 ¹. Prop 414 keeps it for four more fiscal years starting in 2027-28: each year the council sets the spending limit equal to its adopted budget, after a public hearing ¹. The town estimates it could spend about $44.8 million in 2027-28 under home rule versus about $36.1 million under the state limit, with the same revenue either way ¹.

Yes

A Yes vote continues home rule, letting the council set the town's spending limit each year for four years.

No

A No vote puts the town under the state-imposed spending limit.

Required to go to voters. Home rule must go back to voters every four years. The council referred it 5-0 on June 23, 2026 ¹. Source

Arguments

For

• It lets the town budget the revenue it actually receives for local needs ¹.
• Without it the state formula would sharply restrict spending regardless of revenue ¹.

Against

• No arguments against were filed ¹.

Who's where

Fiscal impact

Estimated spending authority under home rule: $44.8M (2027-28) to $50.4M (2030-31). Under the state limit: $36.1M to $40.5M ¹.