Buckeye staff proposes $75 million first tranche of voter-approved G.O. bonds under $2.25 tax-rate plan

City of Buckeye staff on Feb. 4 presented a plan to issue a first $75,000,000 tranche of voter-approved general obligation bonds to fund public-safety and transportation projects, financed by a secondary property tax that would keep the city's total property-tax rate at $2.25 as assessed valuations change.

Doug Sandstrom (staff) explained the financing approach and said the $75 million issuance is sized to start “visible construction happening throughout the city” while fitting within a conservative assessed-valuation growth model used for debt planning. “Any G.O. bonds that we issue are paid for utilizing secondary property tax,” Sandstrom said, describing how the primary rate has declined as assessed valuations rose and the secondary levy would rise to preserve a $2.25 total rate.

Why this matters: Voter approval of the bond questions in November authorized the spending program; this staff plan would begin the first construction and land-acquisition work while maintaining a predictable total tax-rate cap. The change creates a new secondary levy dedicated to bond debt service and will increase many homeowners’ city property-tax bills in the first year of issuance.

Key figures and timing - Bond questions passed in November (two measures: public safety $137 million; transportation/streets $145 million), reported at about 63–65% approval. That voter approval set the program the city is now sequencing. - Staff proposed issuing a $75,000,000 first tranche sized to keep the total city tax rate at $2.25; the secondary portion in the example would be about $0.65 in the current fiscal-year illustration while the primary was $1.60. - Staff said the council should expect bond-authorizing actions in March–April and a formal tax-rate setting in June to implement the levy for fiscal year 2026; no formal council vote on issuance occurred at the workshop.

Projected homeowner impact Staff used an illustrative median assessed valuation “just under $200,000” to show the effect: roughly $65 per $100,000 of assessed valuation is the illustrative secondary increment, with an example increase of about $120 for that median house in the first year. Staff and council noted that the first-year change would be relatively large (presentations characterized it as roughly a 40% increase to the city portion of the property-tax bill) because the city has historically had only a primary levy.

Proposed first-tranche projects Staff described a set of projects to be funded or advanced by the first issuance and near-term follow-on work, grouped by public safety and transportation priorities: - Public safety: design, land and construction funding proposals for Westpark Fire Station (Station 706) and a second two-story station north of Indian School/Acacia; funding for a public-safety headquarters (design and preconstruction in the first tranche) and initial design/land work for a training facility (tower, training range). - Transportation / pinch-point and corridor projects: DCR/design and early land acquisition for Indian School Road (Jackrabbit to Perryville); pinch-point projects including Watson (East half, Durango to Lower Buckeye), Apache (West half, Watkins to Yuma), and the Verrado Way/Yuma intersection; proposed design work and later construction funding for Miller Road (Lower Buckeye to Broadway), Watson full arterial to Verrado, and completion of Jackrabbit north to Indian School. - Other items: Sun Valley Parkway lighting (Tartesso segment), several street-reconstruction targets in Festival/Tartesso and near the airport (Palo Verde), and a bucket for roadway pinch-point removal and street reconstruction.

Council questions and staff replies Council members raised cost and timing concerns, particularly about rising construction costs for fire stations (staff estimated construction in the roughly $14M range for the two stations included in the tranche) and the desirability of value-engineering station designs. Staff said the program intentionally sized the first issuance to the city’s capacity to spend and to show visible projects quickly. Staff confirmed that developer-contribution mechanisms and recorded repayment obligations will be used when projects primarily benefit future-developing parcels; those repayment agreements commonly include multi-year terms (staff indicated typical durations of roughly 10–15 years for repayment arrangements).

Next steps and decisions Staff will return to council in March–April with bond-authorizing resolutions and related documents to permit issuance; the tax levy and formal rate-setting will follow in June for implementation in fiscal year 2026. Council did not take a formal vote on issuance at the workshop; staff described the March–April actions as the next formal steps.

Ending: City staff said the first tranche is intended to start construction quickly and to be affordable under a conservative growth model; council members stressed the importance of delivering visible projects to justify the new levy and asked staff to pursue value engineering and repayment arrangements with developers where appropriate.