Prop 491 asks voters to approve a $22M adjustment to the base expenditure limit. This amount is calculated and regulated by the state.
The ballot language (tagline text) with the $22M request is standard text used by Scottsdale in the past along with all other cities.
The spending limit for Scottsdale is based on the limit set by the State of Arizona back in 1979. This spending limit is adjusted annually for inflation and population growth. Additionally, our expenditure limit was increased by over 40% in both 1998 and 2006.
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
Opinion
Janik: Prop 491 – A straight answer to naysayers
Posted
Betty Janik | Scottsdale City Council
Prop 491 asks voters to approve a $22M adjustment to the base expenditure limit. This amount is calculated and regulated by the state.
The ballot language (tagline text) with the $22M request is standard text used by Scottsdale in the past along with all other cities.
The spending limit for Scottsdale is based on the limit set by the State of Arizona back in 1979. This spending limit is adjusted annually for inflation and population growth. Additionally, our expenditure limit was increased by over 40% in both 1998 and 2006.
The 1998 increase lasted eight years and the 2006 increase has lasted over 10 years due to the great recession and pandemic, which reduced our revenues and expenses. We have gone 18 years without an adjustment. Of 14 area cities, there is only one city with a lower expenditure limit per capita than Scottsdale.
Our FY 24/25 Expenditure Limitation is $613,422,568. With the passage of Prop 491, the permanent base adjustment will increase our expenditure limit by 44% from $613M to $884M. Actual expenditures are not going up by 44% next year. The new limit is expected to last about 10 years as we incur new operating expenses over time.
This is not a tax or a bond override. This simply allows us to spend funds we have. Examples of necessary services that we have funding for, but won’t be able to fund unless the spending limit is increased: 1. Ambulances and their operational expenses. 2. PSPRS payments for which we have $50M set aside to pay down the police pension liability.
Note: This measure was referred to the voters with Council vote 7-0.
Vote Yes on 491 to enable the city to meet current and forecasted needs for services and programs with existing revenue sources.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here