The city section of the ballot: two Mesa bonds, a Tempe sales tax, and a stack of spending limits

Mesa

Mesa's council voted on June 1, 2026 to place four questions on this ballot. Questions 1 and 2 are a single bond program asked as two votes. Questions 3 and 4 are charter housekeeping with real, if quiet, tradeoffs. Mesa has no primary property tax; its bonds are repaid with a secondary property tax, which is the rate discussed below.

Question 1: $150 million for public safety buildings

The ballot text covers design and construction of fire, medical, and police training facilities, including an expanded joint police and fire training campus with year round, air conditioned space; land for future fire stations; public safety communication systems, including modernizing the TOPAZ emergency radio network; police station improvements, headlined by renovation and expansion of the Central Police Station, which Mayor Mark Freeman's pamphlet argument says serves more than 65,000 residents; and rebuilding the fleet and warehouse facilities at the West Mesa Service Center, described in arguments as more than 50 years old. By law, bond money pays for facilities and equipment, never salaries or day to day operations, and each project still needs council approval before construction, a point the supportive council members repeat in their arguments.

For: eight arguments in the pamphlet, all paid for by Citizens for a Safer Mesa: Mayor Freeman (a former Mesa firefighter) on training in Arizona heat, radio reliability, and response times; Vice Mayor Scott Somers and Councilmember Jenn Duff on the legal restriction to facilities and equipment and council approval of each project; Councilmember elect Nick Willis noting Mesa has no primary property tax, so bonds are how capital public safety needs get funded; Councilmember Francisco Heredia listing the Central Station, radio, training, and West Mesa Service Center projects; and the United Mesa Fire Fighters, the Mesa Police Association, and the Mesa Fraternal Order of Police. Against: none. The pamphlet states no arguments against Question 1 were received by the City Clerk.

Question 2: $135 million for streets

Projects named in the pamphlet arguments: pavement reconstruction and safety improvements on Mesa Drive, Broadway Road, and Higley Road, including medians, sidewalks, and accessible ramps; a bridge over the East Maricopa Floodway east of Power Road, described by the mayor and vice mayor as removing a bottleneck for fast growing southeast Mesa, commuters, and emergency vehicles; and the next phase of the Mesa Gateway shared use path. The money also covers streetlights, traffic signals, communication infrastructure, and land. All program figures, the $0.2226 average rate, the $459 million total repayment, and the household math, are the combined figures printed under Question 1; the city publishes no separate rate for Question 2.

For: pamphlet arguments paid for by Citizens for a Safer Mesa: Mayor Freeman (projects came from the Capital Improvement Program, were vetted publicly, and each returns to council before construction); Vice Mayor Somers (southeast Mesa growth needs streets to keep pace, and bad roads slow fire engines and ambulances); Councilmember elect Willis (transportation is a connected system); Councilmember Heredia (take care of what is already built, including the oldest streets in southwest Mesa); community advocate Nycole Leyba (benefits pedestrians, cyclists, and runners, not only drivers); and the fire and police associations. Against: none. The pamphlet states no arguments against Question 2 were received.

Question 3: Charter amendment, how often the council must meet

Three changes in one amendment (Charter Section 209, via Ordinance 6017). First, the current charter floor, a regular meeting at least twice in every month, is removed; the council would fix meeting times by ordinance in accordance with state law. The ordinance's recitals say the council does not intend to substantially change the current schedule (the first and third Monday evenings of each month at 5:30 p.m.), but wants flexibility to hold fewer meetings in a month when business is light or during council breaks. Second, meeting notice would follow the state open meeting law instead of the charter's own partial rules. Third, executive sessions would be allowed for the purposes state law allows, rather than the charter's own list, with final action still only at a public meeting. If approved, the change takes effect the day after the Governor approves it, as the charter requires for amendments.

No arguments for or against were received for the pamphlet. The honest tradeoff, stated plainly: the stated intent is flexibility without changing the usual schedule, and that may be exactly what happens. But the guarantee being removed is the kind voters only notice later, the first month a council decides one meeting, or none, is enough. A yes trusts future councils with that discretion; a no keeps the floor.

Question 4: Charter amendment, how ordinances get published

The current rule (Charter Section 211, adopted by citizen initiative in 1992) requires the clerk to post each ordinance in three public places after introduction and again after adoption, publish a summary in a newspaper before the hearing, and publish the full text in a newspaper after adoption. The amendment (Ordinance 6016) requires posting on the city website, which is actually broader than the state law it tracks, since it applies to every ordinance, not only ones carrying penalties; reduces physical posting to one location in Mesa; and redefines "publish" to mean print, display, or otherwise make available in accordance with state law. The recitals cite the state's 2021 change in the same direction and pending state legislation that would let website posting plus a newspaper reference ad satisfy publication, substantially reducing publication costs. No Mesa specific dollar saving is stated in the pamphlet.

No arguments for or against were received for the pamphlet. The tradeoff: newspaper publication is a dying medium and website posting reaches more people in practice, and the website requirement here covers more ordinances than state law demands. Against that, the 1992 rule was imposed by voters themselves, in an initiative, precisely to keep legal notice out of the city's sole control; a yes hands that control to state law, which a future legislature can loosen without asking Mesa voters again.

Tempe

Proposition 424: A new half cent sales tax, permanently

The allocation is fixed in the measure (Resolution R2026.48, adopted May 14, 2026): 0.3 percent to enhance public safety and strengthen security in parks and neighborhoods, including police, fire, emergency operations, and crime prevention through environmental design; 0.1 percent to improve and operate the transit system and multimodal projects, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and 0.1 percent to expand early childhood care and preschool education, with access priority first to qualified Tempe residents, then teachers working in Tempe school districts, then city employees, then non residents employed by Tempe businesses. That third piece includes expanding Tempe PRE, the city's full day preschool for 3 and 4 year olds, which a campaign summary says can currently serve about 200 of Tempe's more than 3,000 children that age. Nothing in the resolution or ballot text sets a sunset or a reauthorization vote, and the Arizona Republic describes the proposal as a permanent increase. The word permanent does not appear in the ballot question itself; the absence of an end date is what makes it one.

For (pamphlet and campaign): Thomas Duensing, retired city CFO and chair of the Tempe Forward PAC: the state permanently eliminated local revenues, creating a sudden shortfall of about $25 million a year; the city bridged it with $19 million in temporary cuts including frozen positions and projects; without 424, expect permanent reductions to response times, library hours, street repairs, and alley maintenance; the revenue is legally dedicated to the three purposes, and visitors, commuters, and tourists help pay. Kendra Flory, speech language pathologist: the early years determine kindergarten readiness, and Tempe PRE lets working parents stop choosing between bills and a strong start. Mike Scheidt, president of Tempe Firefighters: dedicated funding to hire firefighters and paramedics, strengthen staffing, and replace critical equipment before it fails. Rob Ferraro, president of the Tempe Officers Association: Tempe has fewer police officers today than in 2009 and response times have increased. The fire and police associations each put $30,000 behind Tempe Forward, per Arizona Agenda. Councilmember Bobby Nichols, who opposed the measure before his May election as a regressive tax and now supports it, adds a caveat worth reading: "public safety" is open to reasonable interpretation by the council in budget negotiations, and nothing in 424 requires the council to spend all or any of the new revenue on the police department.

Against (pamphlet and organized opposition): Ron Tapscott, resident: sales taxes are inherently regressive, and the city should fix management first, citing roughly $40 million on the Downtown Refresh and Mill Avenue project, about $2 million for a gateway sign, an estimated $10 million City Hall renovation including a $17,000 office redo for the City Manager, an $89,000 annual Flock Safety contract payment, $83,000 in laptops left unused in storage, and 135 unused printers bought in 2015 for over $66,000; his figures, offered as documented waste. Angelo LaFaro and Larry Mishler: average total compensation, from city data as they cite it, of $209,094 for firefighters and $197,360 for police officers in fiscal 2025, a city manager package estimated above $524,000, and staffing growth from 1,824 full time equivalents in 2016 to 2,266 in 2025, which they compute as 11.83 staff per 1,000 residents against 6.60 in Chandler and 6.03 in Gilbert. Joe Forte: a permanent increase that shoppers can dodge by driving minutes to Chandler or Scottsdale, including for cars at the Tempe Autoplex, and a general fund of roughly $350 million means the issue is allocation, not resources. Gayle Shanks and Bob Sommer, co founders of Changing Hands Bookstore: regressive, mismanaged, and bundled. Mara Funke, a parent who supports the transit and preschool pieces: the bundling itself is the objection, three unrelated priorities in one take it or leave it vote, and she asks for separate propositions. State Sen. Mitzi Epstein (LD12), who chairs a PAC opposing the tax and co chairs the Tempe Coalition for Tax Fairness: a 28 percent jump in the city rate that spares major commercial and corporate entities, and she proposes raising $40 million a year instead from targeted sources such as commercial leases, private construction fees, and hotel stays; note her $40 million target differs from the $50 million yield figure everyone else uses. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club adds the structural point: earmarking does not guarantee added services, because money is fungible, and Tempe already collects a separate 0.5 percent transit tax.

Avondale

Proposition 418: $55 million public safety bond, take two

The context matters here. In 2025 Avondale voters approved a Parks and Recreation bond and rejected the Public Safety bond by only 13 votes. A citizen bond committee formed in 2024 recommended this program, and the council voted unanimously to put it on the 2026 ballot. The expected projects: a new Fire and Police Substation, a new Public Safety Headquarters, a Police Firearms Training Facility, expansion of the main police station, and expansion of the city court office. Six series of bonds are expected over 15 years, funding projects completed over about 20 years. Bond funds cannot pay staff salaries, daily operations, or events, per the pamphlet FAQ.

For (pamphlet): David Stone, executive director of the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs: growth raises demand on police, fire, and courts, and joint modern training improves coordination. Calen Smith, president of Avondale Professional Firefighters: the department has grown from 17 firefighters and one station in 1999 to more than 80 members and five stations, and a new station in growing areas cuts response times citywide. The Avondale police association's argument: officers currently travel outside the city for required annual firearms and emergency vehicle training, costing overtime or absence from patrol, the department has outgrown parts of its facilities, and Alamar's growth enlarges the patrol area. Resident Bryan Kilgore: modern training, equipment, and communications are necessities, and the structure avoids an overall rate increase. Against: none. The pamphlet states no arguments against Proposition 418 were filed.

Peoria

Proposition 417: A 25 year water franchise for Rose Valley Water Company

Rose Valley Water Company is a privately owned, Arizona corporation water utility, a public service corporation regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission, which issued its Certificates of Convenience and Necessity to serve portions of Peoria. It already has major infrastructure in the city and has operated under a 2018 agreement with Peoria on service termination and consumption data. It is one of several private water companies serving parts of Peoria; the city's materials also name Sunrise Water Company and EPCOR Water. A franchise is not the right to sell water, which comes from the Commission's certificate. It is the right to dig, lay, and maintain pipes in public rights of way, and Peoria's charter requires a public vote for it. Terms: 25 years, nonexclusive (the city may grant others the same rights); a fee of 2 percent of gross receipts from water sales within the city, paid monthly, in place of initial permit fees, with the company still paying engineer fees for plan review, inspections, and pavement repair, plus local taxes; the city keeps the right to purchase or condemn the system as provided by law, and the franchise itself is assigned no value in any such proceeding; transfers need council and Commission consent. Rose Valley bore the estimated $121,254.24 cost of this election, as the charter requires of a franchise applicant. Nobody filed a pamphlet argument for or against; the only official statement in favor is the council's resolution finding the franchise beneficial to the city.

Paradise Valley

Paradise Valley has no local property tax and a famously small budget footprint, but it lives under the same state spending limit as every Arizona town, calculated from 1979/80 in 1980 dollars. Its two measures are two different tools for room under that limit, and they are independent: either, both, or neither can pass. A permanent base adjustment (426) raises the limit itself, forever, for everything. A capital fund exemption (427) leaves the limit alone but takes one category of spending, capital projects paid from future surpluses, out from under it. A former councilwoman's published position captures the choice: no on 426, yes on 427.

Proposition 426: Make the spending limit $20 million bigger, permanently

The mechanics, because the numbers confuse everyone: Arizona's limit formula starts from what a town spent in 1979/80 and grows it by population and inflation. A permanent base adjustment changes that starting number, expressed in 1980 dollars as the law requires, and the new base then keeps growing by the same factors every year, with no return trip to the voters. That is what makes it different from Home Rule, the four year version Gila Bend is voting on below. Here, the $3,940,190 adjustment raises the fiscal 2027/28 limit by $20,000,000, from $51,702,050 to $71,702,050. The town says it would use the room for all local purposes including public safety and street improvements; no new or increased taxes are involved, since the town's revenues already exceed what the current cap lets it spend; the cap still binds, and a balanced budget is still required annually. The penalty for overspending without authority is real: withholding of state shared revenue, which was $5,267,070 in fiscal 2025, 7.6 percent of the revenue used for town operations and infrastructure, per the town FAQ.

The town's case for why the formula fails it: minimal population growth understates demand, because Paradise Valley's service load is driven by construction and reconstruction, resort rooms and visitors, pass through traffic, and part time residents the census does not count as population; the inflation factor does not track its two biggest cost drivers, pensions and construction; and services added since 1980 include sewer infrastructure, fire service, alarm monitoring, visitor promotion, street maintenance, stormwater facilities, utility undergrounding, and more police. Paradise Valley voters approved base increases in 2000, 2006, and 2016, and the town notes 84 of 92 Arizona municipalities have modified their limits at least once.

For: Mayor Mark Stanton's pamphlet argument, the only one filed: the formula counts only population and general inflation, revenues have grown to support expanded services while the cap has not kept pace, the adjustment lets the town spend revenue it already collects, it does not raise taxes and does not require spending to the cap, and a no vote risks delayed infrastructure, higher public safety costs, or costlier borrowing. Councilmember Christine Labelle, in the Arizona Progress Gazette, adds that spending capacity is not spending authority: the measure appropriates nothing, and 427 cannot cover ordinary police operations or recurring technology costs, so if she had to choose one measure it would be 426. Against: none filed in the pamphlet. The published opposition is former Councilwoman Mary Hamway, also in the Arizona Progress Gazette, recommending no on 426 and yes on 427: the increase is roughly $20 million, more than 40 percent more spending capacity over the current budget; saying it does not raise taxes misleads, because Paradise Valley has no local tax to raise, and a spending limit exists precisely to impose discipline and force priorities; the state already adjusts the limit yearly for inflation and population; and the town, whose fiscal 2027 budget shows substantial resources, should first show why other financing mechanisms cannot meet its needs.

Proposition 427: A capital projects savings account outside the limit

The ballot question: "Shall the town be allowed to exclude capital projects and land expenditures, including streets, sewer systems, water systems, and all other capital improvements from its state mandated expenditure limit?" Two restrictions define it. Only surplus revenues generated after voter approval can go into the fund; the town's existing General Fund balance, its current savings, cannot be transferred in. And the money can only pay for capital improvement program projects, defined as projects over $100,000 with a useful life of at least three years: sewer repairs, drainage improvements, power line undergrounding, street and intersection improvements, and police and fire buildings and equipment are the listed types. No total amount, cap, or target for the fund appears in the question, the resolution, or the town FAQ; any dollar figure attached to 427 as a cost or a size would be invented. No new taxes. This tool has local history: Paradise Valley voters approved a similar fund in 1993 at $35 million for flood control, undergrounding, roads, and sewer service, and it expired in 2004. That figure is background about the 1993 measure, not a number for this one.

For: Mayor Stanton's pamphlet argument, the only one filed: the constitution allows communities to seek exactly this approval, only future surpluses qualify, no taxes rise, and the capital program already identifies and prioritizes the qualifying projects. Hamway's opposition piece supports 427 while opposing 426, describing it as a separate account for capital needs such as sewer repairs, storm water management, infrastructure, and public safety facilities. Against: none filed in the pamphlet, and none found in coverage. The measures interact, though: Labelle's argument for 426 is that 427 is the narrower tool, useless for recurring operations, so voters who want room for operations need 426 as well.

Cave Creek

Proposition 440: A sales tax to buy 4,005 acres of desert

The initiative, submitted by Acquire State Land PAC, adds Title XVI to the Town Code. The tax starts January 1, 2027. Every dollar must go to purchasing State Trust land zoned Open Space Recreation or Open Space Conservation within town limits, 4,005 acres identified, and to administering the purchase. By the Act's own terms the money may not fund planning, maintenance, or operations for the land, a definition that expressly includes trail construction, improvements, and amenities; the town may issue bonds to speed the purchase but is not required to, and if it does, the tax revenue must pay those bonds. The land's stated purposes: protect natural desert and mountains in perpetuity, scenic views, wildlife and plant habitat, archaeological and historical resources, appropriate public access for education, and limited outdoor recreation, left as pristine as possible without traditional park facilities everywhere. The background both sides share: the Town Council voted unanimously on January 27, 2026 to pursue acquiring these same 4,005 acres, and on March 31 authorized an application to the State Land Department, the first step before a state auction. The council's preferred funding at that point was excise tax bonds plus federal grants and private donations. So almost nobody in this fight opposes buying the land. The fight is over whether this tax, locked into law by initiative, is the right way to pay.

For (pamphlet, many resident arguments): Vicki and Bruce King: not a property tax, proceeds go directly to debt on the 4,005 acres, the debt is paid off in as much as half the time, and the tax sunsets the moment the land is paid in full. Jim Grubb: the $1.1 million a year covers the financing payments and sunsets on payoff. Charles and Terry Webb: preserve a unique Sonoran Desert biome and the only saguaro habitat in the world, in perpetuity, for a penny per $4. Medelice Wirtz: a once in a lifetime opportunity that expands the town's open space trail network past 9,000 acres, with tourists and visitors paying much of the tax. Dusty and Mary Rhoades: the acres are a major contributor to groundwater in the Desert Hills and Cave Creek water system, and developing them would force the town to buy more water as wells run dry. Bruce Arlen, founder of Cave Creek Dark Sky: the tax prevents development and light pollution, locks the land against a future council changing its mind, and pays the purchase off in about half the time at about half the interest of other methods. The Phelps and Glynn families and others: legacy, trails, scenic corridors, and dedicated funding that cuts acquisition interest roughly in half. Against (one pamphlet argument; the author's name was not captured in the pamphlet text available to this research and is not guessed): the writer supports preserving the 4,005 acres and notes the council is firmly committed by a 7 to 0 vote, but argues 440 locks the town into one specific mechanism and restricts its choices; changing resources, including government and private grants, require flexibility; a sales tax increase is best restricted to essential expenditures; and the real question is whether citizens should pick a specific plan now or let elected representatives, with staff and partners including the State Land Department and the Desert Foothills Land Trust, choose the most strategic and cost effective approach as conditions change.

Gila Bend

Proposition 414: Home Rule for four more years

This is the same alternative expenditure limitation mechanism Chandler voters know as Home Rule (see our Chandler page for the full explainer). The council referred it in Resolution 26-05, adopted June 23, 2026 by 5 votes to 0 with two members absent, after two public hearings. Under Home Rule, the mayor and council adopt an alternative limit each year equal to the total budgeted expenditures in the adopted budget, after one public hearing. A three fourths council vote can declare an emergency and suspend the limit for one fiscal year at a time. No spending may exceed estimated available revenues outside that emergency process.

For: one pamphlet argument, from Ron and Dianne Henry of Gila Bend: "Home Rule will allow Gila Bend to control our budget; not the State. We currently operate under Home Rule and are able to budget the revenue we receive to provide for local needs. Without Home Rule the State imposed formula will severely restrict spending regardless of revenue. Home Rule must be reauthorized every 4 years." Against: none submitted. One wording note: the pamphlet's summary ballot form says "beginning in fiscal year 2028" while its descriptive title and yes effect language say the four years begin in fiscal 2027/28. Same period, different shorthand. And a numbering caution: Proposition 414 is also the number of a City of Maricopa general plan measure in Pinal County. Different county, different measure.

Tolleson

Proposition 416: A permanent base adjustment, from $966,494 to $40 million

Same constitutional tool as Paradise Valley's Proposition 426, at a very different scale relative to the town's starting point: the two published figures imply a current base of $966,494, computed here because the pamphlet does not state it directly. The adjusted base keeps receiving the annual population and inflation adjustments afterward. The city's stated reasoning: Tolleson has grown significantly since 1979/80 while the formula still uses that year as its baseline, and updating the base makes the limit reflect the community's current size and service demands and gives long term stability for essential services. The added room applies to public safety (police and fire), water and wastewater, street and infrastructure maintenance, parks and recreation, public works, and other city services, as approved in each year's budget. If it fails, the city says it continues under its current expenditure limitation method for two additional years.

For: one pamphlet argument, from Councilman Adolfo Gamez: approval creates no property tax or sales tax; it provides authority to spend revenues already received; and if the city cannot obtain an alternative limitation in the future, it may be restricted in spending revenues it already receives, which "would have a devastating impact on city services and employees." Against: none received. One figure to treat carefully: the city's FAQ illustrates that with current inflation and population factors, the adjusted base would produce an estimated expenditure limit of approximately $320,876,043, but it attaches that illustration to fiscal 2026/27 while the measure takes effect in fiscal 2028, and no fiscal 2028 limit figure was published. The $320 million is the city's own illustration of the mechanism's scale, printed here with its timing mismatch disclosed rather than as the 2028 limit.