Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Labor Compensation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County workers urge supervisors to replace flat 3% raise with tiered pay plan

Pima County Board of Supervisors · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

AFSCME members and county employees told the Pima County Board of Supervisors that a flat 3% across‑the‑board raise would widen pay gaps; union leaders urged a progressive, tiered increase to benefit lowest‑paid staff and improve retention.

Public commenters representing AFSCME and county programs urged the Pima County Board of Supervisors to reject a flat 3% across‑the‑board pay increase and adopt a tiered compensation model that gives larger percentage raises to lower‑paid employees.

“A 3% raise across the board sounds fair on paper. In reality, some of your employees have a comfortable income while many are struggling financially,” said Lauren Hebert, introduced at the meeting as chair of the Pima County division of AFSCME Local 449. Hebert told the board that the county’s pay ranges offer limited movement and that frontline employees often receive only small annual increases unless they change jobs.

Scott Cruicksmer, chief steward of AFSCME Local 449 and a county employee, said a flat raise “looks equal on paper” but in practice gives a much larger dollar boost to higher earners. Cruicksmer asked the board to “replace this flat increase with a progressive tiered model” and cited a prior county approach that provided larger boosts to lower brackets.

Other county staff who spoke during Call to the Public described workplace consequences of low pay. Cassandra King, vice chair of the Pima County Union who works in eviction prevention, said she has assisted county employees facing eviction and argued that paying living wages could reduce emergency spending on housing assistance. Angie Dougherty, a county employee and union member, recounted what she described as one‑sided negotiations and said actions such as recent removal of union flyers from employee break rooms undercut trust.

Board members acknowledged the concerns and asked administration for follow‑up. Supervisor Cano asked county administration to provide a cost breakdown for a proposed tiered model and to arrange a meeting between AFSCME and administration. Administrator Lesher (staff) said the tentative budget includes a combined 8% increase over two years in various proposals and noted other compensation efforts such as childcare stipends and education reimbursements.

The board did not adopt an immediate change to the tentative budget during the meeting; supervisors requested additional staff analysis and a meeting with union representatives to explore progressive options.