Proposition 435: Yuma County wants more spending authority, but the money isn't part of the deal

Voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to permanently increase the County's spending-limit base by $6.2 million. The proposal would change how much the County is allowed to spend, not how much money it receives.

By Dan Bustard | Yuma Informed

Yuma County wants permission to spend more of the money it already collects. To get it, the County is asking voters to change a spending formula that still reaches back to 1979.

Proposition 435, on the Nov. 3 ballot, would permanently increase the County's historical expenditure base by $6.2 million, roughly 65%. That sounds like a substantial increase, and it is. But there's a distinction voters should understand before deciding.

The proposition would not give Yuma County another $6.2 million to spend. It would raise the starting point used to calculate how much the County may legally spend each year from certain local revenues.

No new taxes. No new fees. No guaranteed spending on roads, law enforcement or anything else.

What voters are being asked to approve is more room under a spending ceiling.

The Board of Supervisors sent the measure to voters on May 18, approving Resolution 2026-22. Supervisors received another informational presentation Oct. 5, but no additional action was required.

A spending limit built around 1980

Arizona voters approved the constitutional expenditure limitation in 1980, when inflation and government spending were major concerns.

The idea was straightforward: local governments should not be able to increase spending indefinitely simply because more money becomes available.

The formula begins with what each county spent from local revenues during fiscal year 1979-80. The Arizona Economic Estimates Commission then adjusts that historical base for inflation, population changes and any permanent adjustments approved by voters.

The resulting number becomes the County's Annual Expenditure Limitation, or AEL.

Nearly half a century later, that original spending level remains the foundation.

The Arizona Auditor General explains that the restriction applies to spending from revenues covered by the constitutional definition. Federal grants and certain state revenues are excluded, along with other qualifying expenditures.

That distinction helps explain two numbers Yuma County has used in discussing Proposition 435.

For fiscal year 2026, the County reported:

• $552 million in its total budget across all funds.
• $121 million as its annual expenditure limit.

At first glance, those figures might suggest the County planned to spend $431 million beyond its legal limit.

It didn't.

The full budget includes money and expenditures that do not count toward the AEL. The spending limit measures a narrower category. Subtracting one figure from the other does not reveal an illegal overrun, money sitting unused or additional funds the County could redirect.

They're different measurements, even if putting them side by side makes the difference look dramatic.

Why the County says the formula no longer works

Yuma County argues that the spending limit has fallen behind the realities of running a modern county government.

According to the County's explanation of Proposition 435, state-collected sales taxes shared with the County increased an average of 6.4% annually over the past decade.

During that same period, the expenditure limit increased an average of 2.6% per year.

That leaves the County in a position where revenue can grow faster than its legal authority to spend certain portions of it.

County officials also point to the 2020 Census adjustments, which they say reduced allowable spending, along with rising costs for personnel, equipment, infrastructure, technology and regulatory compliance.

Some of those costs bear little resemblance to what county government faced in 1980.

The County says it has managed the existing restriction through efficiencies and operational changes, but argues that additional spending authority is becoming necessary to maintain services.

Those are the County's figures and its explanation for seeking the change. They establish why officials support Proposition 435, but they do not independently establish how much additional spending will be necessary in future years.

The Oct. 5 presentation put the proposed increase at approximately 65% of the historical base.

That percentage deserves some attention.

It is not a proposed 65% increase in the County's current budget. It is not a 65% increase in every department's funding. And it does not mean next year's actual spending limit automatically rises by exactly 65%.

The adjustment changes the historical number that goes into the calculation. The Commission would use that revised base when determining future annual limits.

What happens if Proposition 435 passes?

A Yes vote would permanently add $6.2 million to Yuma County's expenditure base, beginning with fiscal year 2027-28.

The change would carry forward into subsequent years, with the regular adjustments continuing.

That would give the County more legal capacity to spend covered local revenue, provided the money is available.

But permission to spend is not the same as a decision to spend.

Supervisors would still have to approve expenditures through the County's budget process. They would still have to determine which departments receive funding and what projects or services take priority.

Proposition 435 does not allocate money to any particular program.

A No vote would leave the existing base unchanged. The usual population and inflation adjustments would continue, but the County would not receive the additional permanent spending authority it is requesting.

County officials warn that leaving the limit unchanged could make it harder to meet future service demands.

That is a potential consequence, not an established schedule of cuts. The materials reviewed for this article do not identify specific programs that would be reduced or eliminated if voters reject the measure.

Would taxes go up?

The County says Proposition 435 would not increase property taxes, raise sales taxes, establish new fees or generate additional revenue.

That's consistent with the nature of the proposal. The question concerns spending authority, not taxation.

The County identifies law enforcement, criminal justice, emergency response, roads, public works, health services and general government operations among the services with expenditures subject to the limit.

Those are important services, but naming them does not establish which would receive additional money if Proposition 435 passes.

Nor does it establish which would suffer if the measure fails.

Those decisions would depend on future budgets, revenues and priorities set by the Board of Supervisors.

Don't confuse it with the City's Proposition 436

Yuma voters will also encounter another spending-limit measure, Proposition 436.

That one belongs to the City of Yuma, which is seeking a separate $30 million permanent adjustment to its own historical expenditure base.

The two governments operate under separate limits.

County Proposition 435 would affect Yuma County. City Proposition 436 would affect only the City of Yuma.

Neither proposition creates revenue, and approving or rejecting one would not determine the outcome of the other.

Yuma Informed has a separate explanation of Proposition 436.

The numbers voters haven't been given

There is a practical problem with evaluating Proposition 435: the published information explains what the County wants to change, but offers relatively little about how that change would affect future spending.

The County has identified the $6.2 million base adjustment and explained why it believes the current limit is restrictive.

What the materials reviewed for this article do not provide is a year-by-year projection showing how much the revised formula would raise the annual limit, how much additional spending the County expects to undertake, or which services might receive that money.

Those are different questions, and they matter.

A higher legal ceiling does not tell voters how close the County would come to reaching it.

The County invited arguments for and against Proposition 435 through July 10 for inclusion in election materials. The records reviewed for this article did not include a completed County publicity pamphlet or an independent fiscal analysis of the proposed adjustment.

The argument for approval is that a spending formula tied to conditions nearly five decades ago may be unnecessarily restricting a county whose revenues and operating needs have changed.

The argument for rejection is that the constitutional limit exists precisely to restrain government spending, and permanently raising that limit deserves a stronger demonstration of how the additional authority would be used.

Both positions address the same underlying choice.

Should Yuma County have greater authority to spend local revenue it already has, or should it continue operating under the existing constitutional formula?

That's what Proposition 435 asks voters to decide on Nov. 3.

The $6.2 million is a change to the formula, not a check. What the County eventually does with the additional spending authority, if voters approve it, would remain a decision for future budgets.