The Pima County Board of Supervisors wants help understanding the costs and impacts of Arizona’s five newly-approved ballot measures on local government and residents.
The board voted unanimously at its Nov. 19 meeting to task county administrators to “analyze and report findings” about “the fiscal and operational impacts on the county” of ballot measures Arizona voters approved in the recent election.
Initially, the board was planning to analyze four propositions, but Supervisor Steve Christy of District 4, asked for a friendly amendment to include Prop. 139.
The other four ballot measures are propositions 311, 312, 313 and 314.
County Administrator Jan Lesher told Arizona Luminaria that she is simply looking for clarification on how the new laws will go into effect and what role the county will play.
There were 13 propositions on the ballot this year. Five of them passed.
- Prop. 311 establishes a $20 fee on every criminal conviction, which would go into a new fund to pay a $250,000 benefit to the family of any first responder who is killed in the line of duty.
- Prop. 312 allows owners of homes and business properties to apply for a property tax refund if the city they live in doesn’t enforce laws about targeting homeless encampments and loitering.
- Prop. 313 changes the sentence for someone who is convicted of child sex trafficking to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
- Prop. 314 criminalizes unauthorized border crossings at the state level, giving local police and judges more power over migrant border crossing. It also tightens penalties on fentanyl sales. The full proposition will not go into effect unless a similar law in Texas is approved in federal court and is in effect for 60 days.
- Prop. 139 adds a fundamental right to abortion to the state constitution. The amendment allows abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions to save the mother’s life or to protect her physical or mental health.
Lesher had the most questions about Prop. 312 and Prop. 314. Read more about the propositions here.
Looking for guardrails
Lesher said it was unclear if there are “any guardrails” for Prop. 312, which would allow people to apply for tax relief if a city doesn’t enforce regulations about homelessness that affects a homeowner or business. She said that rural residents or people living in urban areas next to washes could try to be reimbursed for all of their property taxes.
“How do we not make it extraordinarily difficult, how do we implement so it doesn’t stop people from making claims?” Lesher asked. She added, “We don’t have the clarity” on how this should be implemented.
Supervisor Rex Scott of District 1, said he also wasn’t clear procedurally on how it works. And board chair Adelita Grijalva agreed, adding, “You’re not alone.”
Lesher told Arizona Luminaria that she suspected part of the difficulty with Prop. 312 and sometimes other bills is that they were developed not to address Pima County, but Maricopa.
The other bill that could affect various counties in the state differently is Prop. 314.
“Particularly border counties” — including Pima County — “may have very different impacts,” Lesher said.
Lesher said she is remembering how the state made it through the initial implementation of SB 1070, the anti-immigrant state law from 2010 that gave local law enforcement the authority to arrest people who were suspected of being in the state without authorization.
As for Prop. 311-related fees, Lesher wondered about practical implications.
“How do we do that and what’s the process to collect and distribute. Are the administrative offices of the courts looking at it?”
Lesher said the county plans to have at least preliminary answers by Dec. 17.
“We won’t know every nuance by then, but we can explain to the board what departments will be impacted,” Lesher said.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
