Pima County may raise spending cap by 75% to $1.43 billion

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) - Arizona’s second most populous county is considering raising its spending cap by 75%.

On Nov. 3, Pima County residents will vote on Proposition 425, which would raise the county’s spending cap by $610 million, from $817 million to more than $1.43 billion. The county, which is along Arizona's southern border, is home to Tucson.

In 1980, Arizona voters approved Proposition 108, which added a clause to the state constitution stating that local governments’ spending cap is based on Fiscal Year 1979-1980 local revenue spending and could be adjusted in the future for population changes and inflation.

The spending cap limits how much of certain local revenue a city, town or county can spend each year.

Supervisor Rex Scott said the proposition “is trying to project where [the county] will need the expenditure limit to be set going into the next 25 years.”

Scott, a Democrat, said the county is concerned it will “bump up against” the expenditure limit “within the next two or three years.”

Supervisor Steve Christy told The Center Square that the county’s revenue was $2.1 billion in Fiscal Year 2026-2027, while spending totaled $1.8 billion.

Christy, a Republican, said other board members want to “not have to go back to the voters to ask for additional monies.”

“They want to have the ability and flexibility to spend more money by removing these cap restrictions,” he said.

Christy said he thinks the proposition could bring “good things,” but he opposes it because he is concerned about how the board’s majority will spend the money.

He added that he believes the board has “not spent” money on “core foundational matters” affecting Pima County, such as infrastructure, road repair, transportation and public safety.

The proposition gives the board of supervisors a “blank check to spend more money” however it sees fit, Christy said.

He noted he expected the board to spend the extra money on “taxpayer-subsidized public housing, SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits and homeless initiatives.”

When asked about what the new money would be spent on, Scott told The Center Square these decisions “about revenue are going to still be made in every year’s budgeting process.”

If the county doesn’t pass the proposition, Scott said the county will need to “make greater use of debt financing and potentially” cut programs and services.

 Christy said the county should “try something different” if it doesn’t pass, such as taking “in less money and [reducing] property taxes.”

According to Scott, if the proposition does not pass, it will not lead to tax cuts.

Scott Day Freeman, a senior attorney for the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, raised concerns about how the proposition is being presented to voters, specifically how the ballot’s language doesn’t include information about the $610 million.

The proposition’s ballot language says Pima County is increasing its spending cap by $70 million, but it doesn't tell voters this figure is based on 1980 dollars rather than 2026 dollars, according to Freeman.

Day Freeman said he doesn’t think Proposition 425 “complies with the Arizona Constitution” because the ballot language does not explain the impact of the proposition. He noted the proposition’s ballot language is “very misleading.”

The publicity pamphlet explains the difference between the $70 million figure and the $610 million figure, Day Freeman explained.

Scott said the $610 million figure is not in the ballot language, noting the language “has to conform with what’s required in the constitutional amendment.”

Scott said he confirmed with Pima County officials that the proposition’s ballot language “is defined by the constitutional amendment from 1980.”

The county needs to “stay within the requirements of the amendment when writing the language of the ballot proposition,” he explained.

Scott said any claim the proposition’s ballot language is unconstitutional is “patently false,” adding that the measure would not be allowed on the ballot if it didn't correspond with the Arizona Constitution.

No legal motion challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 425’s ballot language has been publicly filed as of Friday.

Opponents of the proposition think the board of supervisors is attempting to “slip a fast one by the voters," Scott said. "That’s simply not the case."

The $610 million figure has been in all the presentations the board of supervisors has made to community groups, he noted.

In addition to Pima County, Santa Cruz and Yuma counties are also seeking to raise their spending caps.