Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Expenditure Limit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochise supervisors consider rebaseline of 1978 expenditure limit as 'nuclear' option looms
Summary
Faced with an expenditure‑limit calculation that could force levy reductions, county staff outlined options including asking voters in a future general election to reset the 1978 baseline, seeking a two‑thirds legislative fix, or pursuing a statewide amendment; staff recommended preparing a voter packet for a potential 2028 ballot measure.
County staff told supervisors on May 14 that Cochise County may need to pursue a formal change to the state's expenditure‑limit baseline to avoid escalating budget constraints that could cut services.
Sharon, the county budget director, explained that the county's current expenditure‑limit baseline dates to a 1978 statewide proposition and that the formula's inflation index has not kept pace with the county's real costs. "One of the things you do is you go to the voters," Sharon said, describing an option to reset the baseline (for example, using 2025 as the new starting point) so future inflation adjustments better reflect current costs.
Staff outlined three paths: (1) ask Cochise voters in a general election to rebaseline the index (staff said this would need a general‑election placement, making 2028 the earliest practical date), (2) pursue a two‑thirds legislative vote to change the inflation formula or waive levy reductions for counties, and (3) push for a statewide amendment of the 1978 proposition (described as the most difficult option).
Supervisors and staff noted that the county routinely budgets above the expenditure limit because many revenue items (state‑shared sales tax, PILT, and certain exclusions) are excluded from the statutory cap; but the county must still reconcile exposures and could face dollar‑for‑dollar levy reductions if it stays over the limit. Sharon told the board staff are still analyzing how much of the proposed $118 million in expenditures is actually exposed to the limit and that a final number depends on exclusions and the auditor's report for FY2025.
The board asked staff and the county's contracted CPA to prepare more analysis and a packet for voters should the board decide to pursue rebaseline on a future ballot. No formal motion was made; supervisors instructed staff to continue analysis and return with clearer options ahead of tentative budget decisions.
