On Tuesday, the Pima County supervisors in a 2-2 vote rejected County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry’s tentative $1.23 billion budget. Supervisor Ally Miller called for spending cuts, while Supervisor Sharon Bronson tried to justify the failing roads and ever increasing taxes.
Supervisor Ally Miller disagrees with Chair Bronson’s statement that HURF/VLT funds have been spent wisely. |
According to Huckelberry’s memo dated May 24, 2016,Board of Supervisors rules to be voted on at the next scheduled meeting of the Board on June 7, 2016.
Because the Board approved the Regional Flood Control District, Library District, Improvement Districts, Debt Service and Stadium District tentative budgets on Tuesday, the final dudgets for those departments will be on the June 21, 2016 agenda.
Huckelberry writes, “Assuming passage of modification of the Tentative Budget, the County is required to advertise the Adopted Tentative Budget 21 days prior to Final Adoption. Therefore, Final Adoption of the General Fund and overall County budget will occur at the regularly scheduled Board meeting of July 5, 2016.”
“As I have indicated, there is no specific requirement regarding the adoption of the County budget prior to the beginning of Fiscal Year 2016/17.” Huckelberry concluded, “The only date on which a budget must be adopted is when the Board approves the tax rates for the County and the various other taxing jurisdictions within the County, which occurs on August 15, 2016.
Over the years, the struggle between supervisors has centered on spending and taxing. A majority on the Board has fought for increased spending and taxing, while Miller has resisted both.
| CATEGORY | D1 MILLER | D2 VALADEZ | D3 BRONSON | D4 CARROLL | D5 ELIAS |
| TRANSPORTATION & TRAVEL | $0.00 | $4,020.13 | $10,077.95 | $15,395.58 | $8,264.73 |
The proposed budget does not reflect an interest in spending reductions. For example, the proposed budget includes increasing staff in the already bloated Communications Department.
The proposed budget item reads:
Effective July 1, 2016, within the Communications Office, the Print Shop function will be combined with Design Services into a new division named Graphic Services and Print Shop in the General Fund. The Print Shop was formerly in Finance & Risk Management as an Internal Service Fund.
Recommended FTEs are 20.00, an increase of 9.00 FTE from the fiscal year 2015/2016 Adopted Budget. Of this increase, 8.00 FTEs are due to the transfer of the Print Shop function to this department and 1.00 FTE is a new position of Communications Specialist.
The Recommended Budget expenditures are $912,772 above the fiscal year 2015/2016 Adopted Budget primarily due to the transfer of the Print Shop from Finance & Risk Management and other organizational changes.
The Recommended Budget revenues are $237,000. This is an increase from the fiscal year 2015/2016 Adopted Budget of zero, and is due to the addition of the Print Shop.
| — | Total Expenditures | Total Revenues | Operating Transfers | Net Fund Impact |
| FY 2015/2016 Adopted | 917,785 | – | – | (917,785) |
| Transfer of Position from Parks Department | 95,898 | – | – | (95,898) |
| Transfer in of Print Shop Function | 768,728 | 237,000 | – | (531,728) |
| Benefits Adjustments | 22,263 | – | – | 22,263 |
| Motor Pool Adjustment | 749 | – | – | (749) |
| ITD ISF Allocation Adjustment | (1,532) | – | – | 1,532 |
| Other Adjustments Due to Reorganization | 26,666 | – | – | (26,666) |
| Supplemental Requests | – | – | – | – |
| None Submitted | – | – | – | – |
| Total Recommended Budget | 1,830,557 | 237,000 | – | (1,593,557) |
| Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) | 20.00 | – | – | – |
Related articles: