Maricopa County adopts tentative FY2026 budget amid disputes over state cost shifts, jail excise tax and election services

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on Monday approved a tentative fiscal year 2026 budget totaling $3,955,121,599 and set hearings for final adoption, while extensively debating state-mandated payments, a long-running sheriff’s office consent decree, and possible election-cost increases tied to a dispute with the county recorder.

The budget presentation, delivered by Mike McGee and Kirsten Prindle of the county budget office, recommended increased spending on public safety and employee retention, maintained two months of reserves and used conservative revenue assumptions tied to state-shared sales-tax projections.

Why it matters: supervisors said the plan preserves core services while reducing the county’s overall property tax rate; they also warned that several external items — notably a state juvenile corrections payment, changes to Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) payments and unresolved negotiations with the county recorder — could force midyear budget adjustments or cuts.

The board’s motion to adopt the tentative budget — and to publish the five-year capital improvement plan — passed unanimously. Chairman Galvin and other supervisors praised staff for the multi-month process that produced the proposal.

What the budget does: the FY2026 proposal holds line-item spending for mandated services while increasing investments in public-safety personnel and infrastructure. The presentation listed the county’s staff-to-population ratio at 3.08 employees per 1,000 residents and reported a net increase of 85 positions, bringing the budgeted total to 15,147 positions. The capital program in FY2026 totals $452.7 million; the recommended tentative budget also preserves the board’s policy of lowering the property tax rate and reported that the county’s primary levy will be $269.5 million below the statutory maximum.

Mandated state payments and legislative risk: speakers repeatedly warned that roughly one-fifth of the general fund is tied to mandated state payments, and that several of those amounts are uncertain until the state finalizes its budget. Supervisor Lesko asked staff about a $6.7 million juvenile corrections charge that Maricopa County still pays while most other counties have been relieved of it; County Manager Jen Pekorski and budget staff said removing that cost remains a county legislative priority and that the county is proposing a phased approach to shift the burden back to the state.

On ALTCS (Arizona Long Term Care System) payments, budget staff said they used the JLBC baseline for planning — a $5.8 million increase — but noted the governor’s budget included another $9 million that the legislature could adopt, and that provider-rate changes typically are resolved during state budget negotiations. Budget staff characterized ALTCS and related provider-rate changes as a source of “revenue risk” that could increase county expenditures after the state’s budget is adopted.

Elections, shared services and contingency planning: budget staff and Assistant County Manager Zach Scherer told the board that if the county and the recorder cannot reach a shared services agreement (SSA) the county must budget for duplicative election operations. Staff estimated a range of additional costs in a worst-case split: $11 million–$13 million in one‑time capital costs; about $1.8 million in ongoing costs; and roughly $900,000 added to the Elections (ELE1) election-cycle reserve — a total “up to about” $15 million. Scherer described the extra expense as driven mainly by the need to field a separate set of equipment, warehouse space and trained temporary staffing for early in‑person voting if responsibilities revert to statutory form rather than remain delegated under an SSA.

Board members pressed staff on how such a change would affect services: “We would have to cut,” Pekorski said, explaining the county is near its expenditure limit and would have to re-evaluate operating and capital priorities if the extra election costs become ongoing.

Jail excise tax and public-safety funding: presenters and supervisors highlighted recently enacted legislation that renews the county’s jail excise tax and sends the measure to voters in 2026. Budget slides estimate the jail excise tax will generate roughly $288 million in FY2026 and account for about 7.3% of county revenue. Staff told the board the county is seeking a 20-year extension; if voters do not continue the tax the county would likely need to replace that revenue with property-tax increases or make program cuts.

Melendres consent decree and compliance costs: supervisors repeatedly raised the long-term cost of the Melendres litigation and related monitoring. Budget staff presented a cumulative county cost of roughly $352.6 million over 18 years, with FY2026 budgeted spending of about $40.6 million and an operating line this year that includes $34.4 million tied to compliance and sheriff’s-office obligations. Supervisor Stewart described the figure as “staggering” and said the board is exploring legal avenues, while other supervisors urged continued support for deputies and detention staff even as they criticized the recurring costs.

Other department-level items: the recommended budget includes funding adjustments across elected offices and departments. Examples cited during the presentation: $36 probation officers funded in FY25 to address caseloads, $10 reduction specialists and a senior probate attorney in the county attorney’s office, and increases in correctional-health funding to add nurse staffing and pharmaceuticals to reduce booking delays. The Recorder’s and Elections budgets were presented together; staff explained FY2026 compares to a presidential-year cycle and therefore shows decreases in some election-cycle lines because FY2025 included both primary and general election costs.

Actions taken and next steps: the board unanimously adopted the tentative FY2026 budget and the five-year capital improvement plan and set public hearings for June 23, 2025; the property-tax levy will be adopted on the third Monday in August. Budget staff repeatedly urged caution in revenue forecasting — they used a conservative 2% growth assumption for state-shared sales tax in FY2026 — and told the board that final state decisions on ALTCS, provider rates and other items will determine whether contingency reserves or program cuts are needed.

Ending note: supervisors and budget staff emphasized the tentative budget’s priorities — public safety, employee retention and conservative revenue assumptions — while acknowledging several external policy items (state budget decisions, recorder negotiations, and long-standing litigation) will likely affect the final numbers and could require follow-up action by the board.