Maricopa County adopts tentative FY26 budget; board highlights public safety, tax rate decreases and election funding risks

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to adopt a tentative fiscal year 2026 budget recommended by county budget staff, and to set public hearings and dates for final adoption. Budget presenters Mike McGee and Kirsten Prindle summarized the recommended FY26 plan and answered supervisors’ questions before the board approved the tentative county appropriation and related special‑district tentative budgets.

The recommended budget emphasizes public safety, employee retention and meeting state‑mandated payments while maintaining conservative revenue estimates. County staff told the board the budget lowers the overall property tax rate, preserves at least two months of reserves (the Government Finance Officers Association recommended practice), and keeps the county’s levy well below the maximum statutory amount — a point the board repeatedly highlighted.

Supervisors pressed staff on several items with potential fiscal impact. County staff said Maricopa remains the last county required to make an annual juvenile corrections payment to the state — about $6.7 million — and noted the county is pursuing phased legislative remedies to shift that cost back to the state. Staff also briefed the board on uncertainty around the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) provider payments: the budget used the JLBC baseline increase of about $5.8 million but the governor’s proposal included an additional $9 million; final totals depend on the state budget.

Board members and staff discussed the Melendres litigation compliance costs tied to the sheriff’s office. Budget slides and staff comments showed the county’s cumulative costs on the Melendres matter at roughly $352.6 million over 18 years (FY24 spending $273.9 million, FY25 estimated $38.1 million, FY26 budgeted $40.6 million). Supervisors said those continuing compliance costs constrain spending on other law‑enforcement needs.

A substantial portion of the discussion centered on election administration and an unresolved shared‑services agreement (SSA) between the Board and the county recorder. Assistant County Manager Zack Schira told the board staff estimated a worst‑case split of election operations could require between $11 million and $13 million in one‑time capital costs, about $1.8 million in ongoing costs and roughly $900,000 in additional election‑cycle operating costs — a combined worst‑case exposure staff said could be about $15 million. Staff warned that if the board and recorder cannot reach an SSA, the county would need to budget for duplicative equipment, additional temporary staffing and warehousing for early‑in‑person voting sites; absent agreement, staff said cuts elsewhere would be required because the county is at its expenditure limit.

Budget lines called out several other specifics: the county will seek voter approval to extend the jail excise tax (estimated to generate about $288 million in FY26 and roughly 7.3% of county revenue); the county’s primary property tax levy is about $269.5 million below the maximum allowable levy; total recommended positions rise by 85 to 15,147 (staff‑to‑population ratio remains about 3.08 per 1,000); and the elections operating budget requests include funding for 2 additional tabulators at each voting location and maintenance for existing Lexmark ballot‑on‑demand printers (staff reported there are about 550 Lexmark printers available).

At the meeting’s close the board moved and unanimously approved several formal items: adoption of the county tentative FY26 budget and capital plan, setting the truth‑in‑taxation/public hearing and special meeting dates (June 23 for final adjustments and August 18 for levy adoption), and approval of tentative budgets for special districts including flood control, library and stadium districts. The formal motion to adopt the county tentative budget recorded the total appropriation as $3,955,121,599.

The board also directed staff to continue legislative outreach on state cost shifts and to monitor state budget developments that could alter mandated payments. Several supervisors thanked budget staff for responding to follow‑up questions and emphasized the board’s intent to preserve public safety investments while remaining within constitutional expenditure limits.