Civic Data Hub

All states · Arizona

Proposition 316: RETROACTIVELY PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING OR INCREASING A TAX ON GROCERIES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND SETS A MAXIMUM RATE OF 2%.

RETROACTIVELY PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING OR INCREASING A TAX ON GROCERIES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND SETS A MAXIMUM RATE OF 2%.

Arguments for and against Upcoming Legislative referral Local GovernmentTax & Revenue As of 2026-10-10
Data note

fiscal_impact comes from a legislative-session fiscal analysis of the resolution, not a voter-guide fiscal statement; version analyzed is stated in notes.

Legislative referral: no JLBC fiscal impact summary is published in the pamphlet; fiscal_impact null.

Legislative Council analysis in explanatory_statement.

Arguments are paid/submitted arguments; reproduced as submitted. Argument text may include signer name lines and photo-caption fragments from the PDF layout.

1 argument(s) for, 3 against.

GAP-FILL 2026-10-10: fiscal_impact quoted verbatim from Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Fiscal Note on HCR 2021 (As Introduced, 1/31/25), "Estimated Impact" (https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/fiscal/HCR2021.DOCX.pdf). Single-sourced (one official document). JLBC note is on the as-introduced version; final version may differ.

Ballot text (Ballot format (official title + descriptive title))

OFFICIAL TITLE: AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 42-6015, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: RETROACTIVELY PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING OR INCREASING A TAX ON GROCERIES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND SETS A MAXIMUM RATE OF 2%.

What a YES vote means

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) retroactively prohibiting local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027; and (2) after that time, prohibiting local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries without voter approval and limiting any new or increased tax to a maximum rate of 2%.

What a NO vote means

A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to local government taxation.

Explanatory statement

Proposition 316 would limit the ability of a city, town or other taxing jurisdiction to impose a transaction privilege, sales, use, franchise or other similar tax or fee on food and certain nonalcoholic beverages (ready-to-drink and in a closed container) that are intended for home consumption as follows: 1. For a city, town or other taxing jurisdiction that approved the imposition of such a tax or fee on or before January 1, 2025, any increase in the rate of the tax or fee must be approved by the voters and may not be more than two percent of the tax base. However, if the rate of the tax or fee imposed on or before January 1, 2025 is two percent or more of the tax base, the city, town or other taxing jurisdiction may not increase the rate. Additionally, increases in the rate of the tax or fee may not occur between June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2027. 2. For a city, town or other taxing jurisdiction that has not approved the imposition of such a tax or fee on or before January 1, 2025, the adoption of a new tax or fee and any subsequent increase to the rate of the tax or fee must be approved by the voters and may not be more than two percent of the tax base. Additionally, the adoption of a new tax or fee and any subsequent increase to the rate of the tax or fee may not occur between June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2027. Notice: Pursuant to proposition 105 (1998), these measures cannot be changed in the future if approved on the ballot except by a three-fourths vote of the members of each house of the legislature and if the change furthers the purpose of the original ballot measure, by an initiative petition or by referring the change to the ballot.

Fiscal impact

We estimate that HCR 2021 would reduce municipal TPT by $(227.6) million, beginning in FY 2028. The resolution would have no impact on the General Fund since the state does not levy TPT on food for home consumption.

Argument FOR

Vote YES on Proposition 316 – Municipal Transaction Privilege Tax All municipalities in Arizona generate revenue to support local projects and programs through some form of transaction privilege tax (TPT), commonly referred to as a “sales tax.” In most cities in Arizona, this includes a tax that is collected from businesses that sell food for home consumption. For many communities, this “food tax” is an essential source of revenue that supports critical services. Prop 316 offers a balanced approach to managing the food tax going forward. Cities and towns would retain their existing resources, so city services are not negatively impacted. Also, with the passage of Prop 316, a city will need voter approval from local voters if they ever want to raise the food tax, subject to a maximum cap. Cities above the cap would only be allowed to lower their food tax. Prop 316 strikes a meaningful compromise between household affordability for residents, capturing funding from tourists and visitors who utilize public infrastructure and public services, and maintaining budget stability for cities and towns. Support for Prop 316 means support for the fiscal health of Arizona’s cities and towns and the quality of life of their residents. It ensures that authority over the food tax remains firmly in the hands of the people of Arizona. Please vote YES on Proposition 316. Sincerely, Kevin Hartke Mayor, City of Chandler President, The League of Arizona Cities and Towns René Guillen Executive Director, The League of Arizona Cities and Towns Kevin Hartke, Mayor, City of Chandler, Chandler and Rene Guillen, Jr., Executive Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns

and Towns | Sponsored by Rene Guillen

Argument AGAINST

Disguised as tax relief, Prop 316 was designed by the legislature to handcuff cities and towns by restricting the revenue they need to function. Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a similar bill in 2023 that would have cost 65 Arizona cities over $150 million a year, blowing holes in local budgets and forcing them to slash services and raise property taxes. When state legislators cut taxes to the bone, counties and cities have to make up the difference in order to fund essential services like firefighters, police, libraries, parks, street maintenance, and the hundreds of unnoticed benefits that make daily life possible. Mayors who have spoken up against Prop 316 say the loss of revenue it will cause will devastate their communities. For example, food tax revenue makes up more than 30% of the budget in the small town of Taylor. City officials have said a 3% food tax is a lot more equitable than adding a new property tax and concentrating that tax on homeowners. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. They fund the benefits and necessities our cities and towns use to function. A 6-cent surcharge on a $3 gallon of milk is a small price to pay for this. The legislature should work on putting its own house in order, and let cities and towns manage theirs. We strongly urge a NO vote. Melinda Iyer, Co-Director, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, Phoenix and Catherine Sigmon, Co-Director, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, Tempe

Engagement Beyond Voting, Tempe | Sponsored by Civic Engagement Beyond Voting

Prop 316 would put a cap on your city’s ability to tax food meant for home consumption. While it is being presented as tax relief, it has been designed to strip local control ("Home Rule") by increasing the Legislature’s power over your municipality. When the Legislature reduces your city’s revenue, there are still many essential services and everyday needs to be funded—first responders, libraries, parks, senior services, recreation centers and street maintenance. Where would those funds come from? Slashing local budgets forces cuts in services and increases property taxes. Smaller or rural Arizona communities often rely heavily on grocery sales taxes as their primary source of municipal income. For these towns, capping this revenue could be financially devastating. By requiring a mandatory public vote for any minor increase to a local food tax, Prop 316 imposes an additional administrative hurdle—running local ballot measures for routine municipal budget adjustments. That's an inefficient and expensive use of taxpayer resources. The state should show respect for our cities and towns. We are very capable of managing our own finances. We OPPOSE Prop 316 Gayle Shanks, Tempe and Clive Sommer, Tempe

Gayle Shanks, Tempe and Clive Sommer, Tempe | Sponsored by Gayle Shanks

HCR 2021 – This is a forced cap on city-imposed grocery taxes. This legislation is a significant overreach by the state legislature and shows you just how far they will go to keep any other legislative body from determining their own fate. Localities are dependent on those types of taxes. By limiting their tax base, it would have significant repercussions on their local services and support. It isn’t up to the state legislature to determine a city’s budget. Additionally, pushing this onto the November ballot gives us a two-page four-sided ballot. Gee thanks Jake! Vote No on Proposition HCR 2021. Timothy Everhard, Director, Arizonans for Freedom, Peoria Gayle Shanks and Bob Sommer Changing Hands Bookstore Co-Founders

Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.

Find more info