Greenlee County revenue running above projection; administrator warns election bills could raise costs

County Administrator Derek Rippert told the Greenlee County Board of Supervisors that the county is running about $600,000 above its shared sales-tax projection seven months into the fiscal year, but he urged caution because mining-related severance tax volatility and proposed state election laws could affect next year's revenue and election costs.

RIPPERT SAID the county projected $5,100,000 in gross annual revenue from state-shared sales tax; the current figures show the county about $620,000 above that projection. He also said the county's local half-cent sales tax was projected at about $1,440,000 and is roughly $18,000 above projections to date. "We're about $600,000 above projected revenue seven months into our fiscal year," Rippert said.

The revenue picture matters because the board begins work this spring on fiscal 2026 projections and potential budget changes. Rippert said a significant portion of the state-shared sales-tax stream comes from severance taxes tied to mineral extraction at local mines and that those receipts are sensitive to commodity prices and production costs. "Part of that severance tax formula is the difference between the price of copper and the cost of production," he said. "That's something that we have no control over." He added that some adjustments that occur in miners' reporting and tax treatment have produced erratic monthly distributions.

Rippert recommended watching the next two to three months before raising the county's monthly projection. "If the trend of this month continues, if this is not an outlier, then we might bump that $425,000 up to $475,000, maybe even $500,000," he said, referring to the monthly figure used in budget planning.

He also flagged two state-level election measures moving through the Legislature that could increase county election costs or change how voters cast ballots. One bill being considered would shorten the window for counting late-returned early ballots by effectively stopping receipt of certain early ballots at the Friday before an election. Rippert said that measure would reduce the portion of ballots counted before election night and would require changes to counting procedures.

A separate, more consequential proposal from the House (described in the meeting as originating with Representative Culligan) would eliminate the county's current vote-center system and require precinct-based voting with a precinct for roughly every 1,000 registered voters. Rippert said that would likely multiply the number of polling sites in Greenlee County—from the current handful of vote centers to "probably 6 to 8 new precincts" or possibly more—and would increase the number of poll workers and the need for additional on-site vote-counting equipment. "We would end up buying small machines. Part of this bill would require that we have on-site vote counting, which means we may have to purchase more vote counting machines," he said.

Rippert said the county's elections staff could adapt more easily to the bill that shortens early-ballot counting than to a return to precinct voting. He noted that Governor Katie Hobbs has vetoed some election-related changes in the past and that the bills under consideration could reach the governor or the ballot as continuing resolutions. He mentioned Senator Gowen and Senator and House leaders as contacts for further outreach.

Board members asked clarifying questions about the election proposals and revenue trend lines during and after Rippert's presentation. Rippert cautioned that national and regional economic developments'including executive orders and trade actions'were producing short-term volatility that can ripple into local consumer behavior and tax receipts. "Trends are going to be harder to predict in our environment," he said.

The county's staff will continue monthly monitoring of shared sales tax and the local half-cent tax and may recommend adjustments to FY26 projections if several months show a sustained trend. Rippert closed by offering to answer questions and to keep the board updated as legislative action or revenue patterns evolve.

The remarks occurred during the board's administrative reports; Rippert's presentation ran primarily through the board's revenue and legislative update portion of the meeting.