Tim Steller’s column: Pima County’s surplus spending a window into Prop. 425

Pima County underspent by about $18 million in the last fiscal year. So this month they had some unbudgeted money to burn.

On Tuesday last week, the Pima County Board of Supervisors agreed on how to spend it — in the middle of an election campaign over giving Pima County vast new leeway to spend.

They’re putting $8.9 million toward employees. About half of that goes to those making less than $45,000 per year and $2.7 million to pay increases for those working night shifts and on-call duty.

They’re spending $2.5 million on the One Pima safety initiative, including adding nighttime hours to county parking garages downtown, promoting downtown, and helping neighborhoods around the county jail.

They’re spending $1.9 million on equipment and staff needed for six additional Pima County Superior Court judges.

In total, that’s about $13.3 million of new spending, most of it on defensible priorities. But it happened at an awkward time. In these exact weeks, Pima County supervisors and other county leaders are promoting an increase in Pima County’s spending limit by $610 million per year.

If we don’t increase the spending limit, Pima County Supervisor Rex Scott noted, the county board could be forced to increase future spending through debt financing — a more costly way to pay for services — or cut spending.

“What we’re trying to do is project forward for the next 20-25 years in terms of what we feel our needs would be during that period of time,” Scott said. “I think it’s important to always be thinking long term and planning proactively.”

Scott and other supporters have made the argument that having a higher spending limit doesn’t mean either that they will spend that much money or increase taxes to bring in that much revenue.

Which is true on its face. Nothing obligates them to spend as much money as they legally can, and everything would have to be approved in open meetings by elected supervisors who face the voters every four years.

But on the other hand, the surplus spending this month is telling. When there’s money around, supervisors can always find priorities to spend it on.

Jay Tolkoff, who is co-chairing the opposition campaign to Prop. 425, compared it to “giving your kid a credit card with a $100,000 limit and saying don’t spend more than $10,000.”

“Tell us what you’re going to do with it,” he said of the new capacity. “Put some restrictions on it. Or put a sunset on it.”

The existing spending limit goes back to a June 1980 constitutional amendment that capped the amount of money a county or city can spend in a given year. It was part of a package of 10 amendments passed in June that year, in part as an alternative to a harsher constitutional amendment voted on, and rejected, in November that year.

The amendment uses 1979-80 as the base year and extrapolates higher caps each year based on population growth and inflation.

The proposition would increase the 1979-80 cap by $70 million, approximately a 75% increase. By increasing the base that much, the proposition would give the county about $610 million more dollars in spending leeway by 2027-28.

It’s a huge increase that county officials defend, in part, because it is the first such request Pima County has made in the 46 years since 1980. Seven other counties have won similar spending-cap increases, and Yuma County and Santa Cruz counties are seeking one this year too.

Coconino and Yavapai counties both increased their spending caps by 70% or more in 2024, Scott noted. Tucson increased its spending limit in 1987 and 2013.

But the request is coming at a time of eager county spending, not of notable restraint. For example, Pima County supervisors approved a 10-year, $250 million affordable-housing plan last year. It intends to cut into the county’s affordable housing deficit through “incremental” increases in the property-tax rate, on top of other small increases in previous years.

After the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the Pima County board decreased the combined property tax rate four years in a row. After 2022-2023, the board increased the property tax rate three out of four years. Efforts to solve intractable problems like the affordable housing crisis promise further increases, though they may be small.

Tolkoff imagined a scenario in which the county considers building a Sierra Tucson-like drug-rehabilitation facility.

“The way it is right now, they would have to come up with a plan saying ‘This is what we intend to do,’ and ask for a bond to do it,” he said. “If they have $610 million, they could in one fell swoop say, we’re going to do it.”

Yes, some checks are there. Such a big spending plan would cause a serious public debate. Proposals for large tax increases would inevitably lead to strong backlash, too.

But there is a progressive Democratic supermajority on the board of supervisors. And the tendency is clear, in a metro area full of needs, for the system to absorb all available money and seek more.

It’s evident after a fiscal year when $10 million or $20 million becomes suddenly available.