Yavapai supervisors direct staff to present tentative budget keeping county, library tax rates flat

YAVAPAI COUNTY, Ariz. — The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors on May 6 directed staff to prepare a tentative FY‑26 budget that would hold the county and library district tax rates at their current levels and move the proposal through the required Truth in Taxation notice process.

The board’s direction came after extended discussion about structural budget pressures the county faces, notably the portion of jail district costs being covered by the general fund and an unfunded PSPRS liability. County Manager Maury Thompson briefed the board on revenue and expenditure options and warned against relying on one‑time reserves for continuing expenses: “We can’t continue to dip into one time reserves to fund ongoing expenditures,” he said.

Why it matters: Supervisors said they prefer maintaining the tax rate rather than drawing recurring services from reserves or cutting services. Several supervisors described the county’s long‑term exposure from capital projects and rising recurring personnel costs, and the group identified the jail district—where the county covers roughly half of ongoing costs not met by the separate jail tax—as a core driver of structural deficits.

What the board directed and next steps: Staff was asked to return a tentative budget that keeps the county and library tax rates flat and to follow the Truth in Taxation statutory notice and public‑hearing timeline that applies when a governing body proposes a higher tax levy than the previous year. County staff confirmed the schedule and said the required public notice will include the estimated impact on a $100,000 home and the public hearing will be part of the budget adoption sequence in late June. The board did not adopt a final budget at the study session; formal adoption will require the public‑hearing and roll‑call vote at a later meeting.

Discussion highlights: Supervisors debated alternatives, including cutting recurring positions and program funding. Supervisor Chek (transcript: "Supervisor Chek") questioned parts of the process and said she would have preferred more lead time to analyze options; other supervisors stressed the county’s need to fund services as demand grows. The manager and staff noted that the jail district shortfall pushes roughly $11.1 million of jail‑related expense into the general fund and that addressing that mismatch will be part of longer‑term planning.

Budget assumptions and compensation: The draft assumptions in staff presentations included a combined COLA/merit package in the 5–6% range consistent with peer markets, and an explicit vacancy‑savings factor intended to capture historical turnover (staff estimated roughly $1.8 million in recurring vacancy savings in the recommended numbers). Wendy Ross, director of human resources and risk management, summarized benefit changes affecting the budget and told the board, “We did a 7% increase on the health insurance,” noting the county pays 100% of single coverage and subsidizes family coverage.

What remains unresolved: The board stressed it wants more process clarity going forward; several supervisors asked for additional study sessions and earlier data in next year’s schedule so that alternatives (including a non‑flat tax scenario) can be prepared and vetted. Supervisors also asked staff to return with options that specifically address the jail district cost shifts and the county’s long‑term structural gap.

Ending note: Staff will prepare the tentative budget documents and the Truth in Taxation notices for the public‑hearing sequence. Final adoption remains subject to the public hearing and a roll‑call adoption vote later in June.