Maricopa County Proposition 409: Debt, Duty, and Public Safety
Arguments for and against laid out before voters have the final say
Editor’s Note: A special thank you to Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, Andrew Adams, Chairman of LD14, and Carly Morgan, Precinct Committeeman in LD15, for sharing their insights and perspectives.
Maricopa County voters will face a significant decision this November: whether to approve Proposition 409, a bond proposal authorizing up to $898 million for Valleywise Health. Proponents frame it as a crucial investment in behavioral health, emergency services, and modern hospital infrastructure. Opponents counter with warnings of overreach, opacity, and compounding debt.
Amid those conflicting claims, the words of Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan carry particular weight. As a public safety official, he argues that Valleywise’s role intersects law enforcement and crisis response. His perspective adds a practical dimension to what often becomes a sanitized fiscal debate.
Photo Credit: Carley Morgan
Sheridan Speaks: Public Safety, Crisis, and Capacity
In his op-ed in the Arizona Capitol Times “Prop. 409 is about saving lives and making our community safer,” Sheridan lays out the stakes from the perspective of law enforcement. He begins with a framing many might not expect:
“Public safety is more than patrol cars, jail cells, and courtrooms. It requires building strong partnerships with health care systems that can prevent crises before they escalate, offer timely intervention, and invest in treatment.”
He describes daily encounters between deputies and individuals in mental health crises:
“Every day, my deputies encounter individuals in acute mental health or behavioral crises. … a jail cell is not ideal for treatment.”
Sheridan highlights the growing caseload: over ten years, mental health court cases have risen 169%, prompting expansion of court services (e.g. a second mental health courtroom at the Maryvale facility). He also notes that Valleywise’s behavioral health centers currently operate with 412 active treatment beds across four facilities, a number he contends is insufficient for demand.
He frames Prop 409 not as abstract infrastructure, but as a practical tool:
“Prop. 409 … will:
• Build a new, 200-bed behavioral health hospital … doubling behavioral health inpatient capacity
• Expand court-ordered evaluation and treatment space …
• Modernize emergency and trauma services …
• Improve access to care in neighborhoods …
• Enhance physician training facilities …”
He rounds the appeal with a message of cost and responsibility:
“For the average household, Prop. 409 translates to just a few dollars a month. It is a small price to pay for a safer, healthier community where people in crisis get help, not handcuffs.”
State 48 News shared the arguments from the grassroots community with Sheriff Sheridan. They strongly disagree that it’s “a few dollars per month” when you add up the cumulative effect. More to come about the numbers…
In a fitting closing to his op-ed:
“In my 40 years of law enforcement … timely, appropriate care can change the course of someone’s life — and even prevent tragedy. Proposition 409 gives us the tools we need: more capacity, more options, and more opportunities to step in before a crisis unfolds.”
Sheridan urges voters to view Prop 409 as more than health infrastructure; in his view, it bolsters public safety by giving first responders alternatives to incarceration.
The Critique: Adams, Morgan, Debt, and Democracy
While Sheridan argues from a public safety lens, critics such as Andrew Adams and Carley Morgan challenge the foundation and accountability of Prop 409. Adams, the GOP Legislative District Chairman in LD14, and Morgan, a grassroots activist and East Valley Republican Precinct Committeeman, raise concerns that fall into several categories: transparency, debt layering, past performance, and taxpayer burden.
Photo Credit: Leisure World
Transparency & Process
Adams emphasizes that Prop 409 did not arrive via citizen initiative or petition:
“Proposition 409 did not reach the ballot because citizens signed petitions or pushed it forward. It was placed there without signatures, without warning, and most people never saw it coming.”
He argues that the Valleywise Health Board wields sweeping power to place bonds on the ballot—with little oversight:
“That power comes with a duty to the taxpayers they represent. … demand open communication … hold them accountable for how they manage the billions of dollars already entrusted to them.”
Debt Stacking & Fiscal Logic
Adams notes that the first bond—$935 million passed in 2014—is still being repaid, with nearly two-thirds of the principal outstanding. He frames Prop 409 as compounding debt rather than resolving it:
“That bond runs until 2041 … Now, just ten years later, they are back asking for another 30-year bond. That is another layer of debt … it is compounding debt stacked on the backs of taxpayers with no end in sight.”
He challenges the logic of doubling down without demanding better outcomes:
“Ask the doctors in our own district. They will tell you Valleywise is among the worst hospitals in the state. … Taxpayers are still waiting for the promised results … instead of delivering, Valleywise is already asking for billions more.”
He also criticizes corporate enthusiasm for Prop 409:
“Big corporations like SRP and the Diamondbacks … talk about how they are supporting the community. But the truth is they have tools … to take a lot of the burden off taxpayers … The fact that such avenues have not been fully explored raises serious questions about the approach being promoted today.”
Morgan’s Concerns: Double Taxation & Taxpayer Risk
Carley Morgan, another outspoken critic, describes the measure as fundamentally unfair:
“I feel like it’s double taxation. We pay for AHCCCS, which is treated and accepted just like any other insurance at private healthcare places and dentists for people who can’t otherwise afford healthcare, including behavioral health care. So it makes no sense to also pay for the buildings, doctors, staff, equipment and carry all the liability as far as lawsuits, workers comp and ASRS [Arizona State Retirement System] for all the employees, which they have over 4,000 of.”
Morgan also warns about the human consequences of rising property taxes: “If you go to the Maricopa County assessor’s office, you can literally click on a map set up specifically to see who’s behind on taxes so you can buy their home. And when you click on one of these dots, it shows you the homeowner’s name and how much they owe in back taxes.”
For her, Prop 409 risks pushing more elderly and fixed-income residents into tax delinquency and foreclosure.
Financial Context & Tax Burden
According to the grassroots, any serious evaluation of Prop 409 must consider two financial dimensions: existing debt, and the incremental property tax burden on homeowners.
Outstanding Debt
The 2014 Valleywise bond of $935 million is still being repaid; nearly $682 million remains (about two-thirds).
This debt overlaps with Prop 409’s repayment schedule for multiple years.
Combined, the total obligations of both bonds (principal + interest) may exceed $2 billion over time.
Current Burden vs. New Burden
Right now, Maricopa County homeowners are already paying into the 2014 bond through the Special Health Care District tax levy. For 2024, that combined rate is $0.2665 per $100 of assessed value. For a home assessed at $450,000, that’s about $120 a year, or $10 a month.
If Proposition 409 passes, the district would layer on an additional $0.11 per $100 of assessed value. That translates to about $50 a year on a $450,000 home. In practice, a homeowner paying around $120 annually now would see their bill rise to about $170 a year for the health district portion—an increase of roughly one-third.
Contrasting Visions: Safety-Net vs. Safeguarding Taxpayers
What is Prop 409 really asking voters to choose?
Sheridan’s case leans on pragmatism and capacity: to give first responders more tools, prevent crisis escalation, and build out a behavioral health safety net. In his view, the investment is modest relative to the human and fiscal cost of crises left untreated.
Adams and Morgan’s critique leans on accountability and restraint: that taxpayers should not be locked into long-term debt without clear oversight, performance metrics, or alternative funding strategies. They warn that supporters are too quick to push responsibility onto homeowners.
In the middle sits the question of trust: do county leaders and hospital administrators deserve more money before finishing or proving the results of prior investments?
To bring clarity to their vote, residents should demand transparent answers in several areas:
What is the exact annual tax rate (for your home) per $100 assessed value for Prop 409?
What benchmarks will be used to measure success?
How will Valleywise manage staff pensions, operations, and ongoing maintenance without additional hidden tax levies?
What alternative revenue streams were explored (grants, private fundraising, partnerships)?
Given that the 2014 bond still burdens taxpayers, why is adding nearly $900 million more considered responsible so soon?
How will this tax burden be passed on to renters?
Final Take
Proposition 409 is not just a health bond. It’s a crossroads between two approaches to governance: one that invests proactively in infrastructure, and one that exercises caution against debt before accountability.
Sheridan’s law enforcement perspective argues that public health and public safety are entwined—if mental health crises are better managed, deputies and hospitals face fewer emergencies. Adams and Morgan’s perspective warns that taxpayers should demand responsible governance before approving open-ended borrowing.
There is not a lack of throwing weight behind Prop 409. State 48 News has been informed that the Maricopa County Republican Committee has not taken an official position but Prop 409 is on the agenda for the executive meeting next week.
There’s no shortage of proponents throwing major money behind Prop 409. State 48 News has learned that while the Maricopa County Republican Committee has not yet taken an official stance, the measure is scheduled for discussion at next week’s executive meeting. With ballots about to drop for the November all-mail election, critics argue that opponents may be running out of time to make their case.
One opponent has been working hard to get the word out. Carley Morgan has hand-painted hundreds of signs (no, really!) alerting Arizonans “to vote no” on Prop 409.
Citizens from around the valley have sent us photos that the signs are being defaced with lewd flyers.
