County Will Levy The Full Rate On Property To Help Balance Budget

According to Navajo County Government Relations Administrator Hunter Moore, the increase means that a home with an assessed value of $100,000 will pay approximately $11 more per year. He notes, however, that most property owners will still pay a lower amount than they did in 2010.

“Based on available data, property owners are expected to pay an estimated $11,334,806 in 2014, which is $1,150,137 less than the amount paid in 2010,” he noted. “Additionally, under the proposed budget, Navajo County would have the fourth lowest property tax rates of Arizona’s 15 counties.”

In fiscal year 2010-11, the primary tax rate was 55.72 cents and the secondary rate 54.63 cents, for a total of $1.1035 per $100 of assessed value. At that time the county ranked 14th among all the counties for the primary rate and 13th for the total tax rate.

The increase is expected to bring in an additional $532,506 over the course of the fiscal year. To make up for the remainder of the shortfall, county officials have proposed shifting funds from special districts, such as flood and health districts, to the general fund. According to Moore, the state legislature gives the county the authority to make such sweeps.

Special districts are funded primarily through property taxes. The districts are formed by voters to serve a specific purpose, such as providing fire protection for unincorporated areas. Many special districts only collect property taxes from individuals residing within their service areas, for example, a road improvement district would only levy taxes from property owners who use the road to access their property. A few districts are county-wide, however, such as the flood control, library and health districts.

By the end of the current fiscal year, the county expects to have collected a total of $5.5 million on behalf of the county-wide special districts. The budget for the upcoming year proposes sweeping $1.45 million from those districts and placing it in the general fund. Moore’s statement on the proposed transfer did not address how those districts will absorb the budget cuts.

Moore noted that the county has been reducing expenditures for six years, due in part to “the continuing effects of ongoing state impacts.” The legislature has been sweeping funds intended for counties and cities since 2008 to try to balance the state budget.

County Manager James Jayne stated, “After enduring six years of continued cuts in revenue from the state, being hit with another $2.1 million in federal and state impacts could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Our operations have already been severely cut, scrutinized and refined to the point where we’re contending with 75 vacant positions and a reduction in services that impact our citizens.”

The board of supervisors was expected to consider the proposed tentative budget at a meeting on Tuesday. Once the tentative budget has been approved, it can be modified to reduce expenditures, but it cannot be increased before the final budget is approved.