🏠 "We Did PEEPS With No Plan": Pima Supes Delay Critical Housing Funding Despite Soaring Homelessness | PIMA COUNTY MEETING 5.20.25
Supervisor Heinz highlights hypocrisy in planning requirements: "We did PEEPs with no plan." Housing crisis worsens as affordability drops by 50% since 2020.
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
🏛️ The Pima County leaders had a big meeting where they talked about whether to use a tiny increase in 🏡 property taxes to help build houses that people can afford. Some leaders wanted to wait and make more 🔍 plans first, but others said people need help right now.
One leader pointed out that they had given money to help little kids go to 🏫 preschool without needing a detailed plan first, so why should housing be different?
They also talked about the county's budget, which is about 💵 $1.8 billion, and passed new rules to prevent 🔥 fires during the dry season. In the end, they decided to keep talking about the housing plan at their next meeting in 📅 June.
🗝️ Takeaways
🏘️ Supervisor Heinz's affordable housing proposal would raise $225 million over 10 years through a property tax increase, but was delayed for the third time
💬 Heinz called out hypocrisy: "We did PEEPs with no plan, $10 million for early childhood education," while housing initiative faces planning requirements
📊 Housing crisis is worsening rapidly: homes affordable to median income earners dropped from 75% in 2020 to just 38% in 2023
💵 County's $1.8 billion budget includes a 5% raise for employees, but rising healthcare costs could eat up to half of that for lower-paid workers
🔥 New Stage II fire restrictions and fireworks regulations were approved unanimously, showing board unity on public safety issues
🌲 Resolution protecting Ironwood Forest National Monument passed 4-1, with Supervisor Christy as the lone dissenter
🏛️ Philosophical divide revealed: Christy claimed housing isn't county's responsibility, while Allen cited legal authority to support "impoverished Americans"
Pima County Board of Supervisors Meeting: "We Did PEEPs With No Plan" – Housing Crisis Takes Center Stage
Tuesday's marathon Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting stretched for over six hours, covering everything from a controversial affordable housing funding proposal to fire restrictions and the adoption of the county's $1.8 billion tentative budget.
The meeting revealed deep philosophical divisions about the role of county government, particularly when it comes to addressing housing affordability in our region, and exposed the hypocrisy of delaying urgent housing assistance. At the same time, other initiatives have sailed through without detailed plans.
Sometimes democracy moves at the speed of a desert tortoise - deliberate, methodical, and occasionally frustrating to watch. Today's meeting was a masterclass in the messy process of local governance, where procedural concerns often override humanitarian urgency...
The Players Behind the Dais
The full five-member Board of Supervisors was present for this meeting:
Rex Scott (Chair, District 1) - A moderate voice who pushed for more planning before committing to major funding decisions
Dr. Matt Heinz (District 2) - The progressive champion of the affordable housing proposal
Jennifer Allen (Vice Chair, District 3) - Strongly supported affordable housing investment and climate initiatives
Steve Christy (District 4) - The lone Republican, raised concerns about taxation and fiscal responsibility
Andrés Cano (District 5) - The newest member of the board, supported affordable housing in principle but had reservations about implementation
County Administrator Jan Lesher led the staff presentations on budget matters with support from Art Cuarón, Andy Welch, and Javier Rendon. Other notable county staff included Sarah Marquez (Clerk of the Board), Lisa Davis (providing updates on federal funding impacts), Amanda Monreal (Office of Emergency Management), and Sam Brown (Civil Deputy Attorney).
Housing Funding Debate Takes Center Stage
The most contentious item was Supervisor Heinz's proposal to create a funding stream for affordable housing by increasing property taxes, generating approximately $225 million over the next decade. The plan has already been before the board twice, and today marks its third appearance.
Since the last meeting, Heinz has modified his proposal, creating a "ramp up" and "ramp down" approach. The tax would start at 1.5 cents in the first year, increase to 3 cents for eight years, and then drop back to 1.5 cents in the final year.
Keith Bentele, a University of Arizona researcher representing the Tucson Alliance for Housing Justice, provided sobering statistics about the housing affordability crisis:
"In 2020, 75% of the homes purchased in Tucson were affordable to a household earning the local median income. In 2023, this fell to 38% of homes sold," Bentele said. "This is a profoundly fast and really enormous change in our local economic landscape."
Supervisor Christy opposed the proposal, citing Arizona state statutes that outline the Board's powers: "Not once does it ever talk about providing affordable housing, unaffordable housing, or housing of any kind. It's shocking how quickly off our mission as a Board we are delving into this very unjust way of taking from those who can afford it the most and giving it to those who can afford it the least."
Supervisor Allen pushed back, pointing out that Christy had not quoted the entire provision: "It includes additional language that states that counties should 'do and perform all acts necessary to enable the county to participate in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, which calls for facilitating education, health, employment and general welfare for impoverished Americans.'"
The "PEEPs With No Plan" Revelation: Hypocrisy Exposed
As Chair Scott argued for delaying the housing tax proposal until after receiving the Regional Affordable Housing Commission's draft plan, expected in November, Supervisor Heinz delivered what became one of the meeting's most memorable moments.
"We did PEEPS with no plan, $10 million for early childhood education, which I willingly and I'm so glad I supported and continue to do so," Heinz pointed out forcefully. "And the plan kind of figured itself out after a year or two."
No, the PEEPS plan did NOT “figure itself out” at all.
The PEEPS (Pima Early Education Program) reference struck at the heart of the argument against his housing proposal. The county had previously allocated $10 million to early childhood education without requiring the same level of pre-planning, which is now being demanded for affordable housing.
"So I just think it makes no sense to continue this when we know what the urgent need is now," Heinz continued, frustration evident in his voice. "And remember, the timeline is incredibly important in discussing a continuance because when we give the $5 million to our commission, and it's 14, 16, 18 months before that money turns into actual units."
Heinz's comparison highlighted a fundamental question about how the government decides which crises deserve immediate action and which can wait for perfect planning. It also revealed the board's willingness to act decisively on some matters while being overly cautious on others, often along predictable political lines.
"We've got the housing study. It gives us the top-line numbers. Everything in this proposal is based on data," Heinz emphasized, countering the narrative that the proposal lacked proper research or preparation. "We appointed people to the original affordable housing commission, and they voted; I think only two people opposed this overwhelmingly. They're begging us to give them the funding stream and resources to do the work we've charged them to do for our community. And now we're going to ignore that."
Allen strongly advocated for immediate action: "We know the problem. We feel the problem. We see the problem. And I think we are only seeing right now, given the economic uncertainty of the moment that we are in, that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. And things are going to just get worse."
Supervisor Cano attempted to introduce detailed amendments to provide more structure to the proposal, but was ruled out of order by the parliamentarian. He explained his position:
"I would like to see the estimated 200 million plus dollars generated go toward the stated purposes of construction and preservation of affordable housing in Pima County, but especially toward the expansion of initiatives and programs that reduce homelessness and keep people housed as well."
Chair Scott opposed Heinz's proposal, arguing it "upsets that consensus by prioritizing funding over planning." He called for waiting until receiving the Regional Affordable Housing Commission's draft plan, expected in November: "Prudence and our duties to taxpayers dictate that we should not be talking about funding until we have reviewed the draft plan, revised it as needed, and adopted it."
After vigorous debate, the board voted to continue the discussion to the June 3rd meeting, with Supervisor Cano to provide written amendments to address implementation concerns.
Budget Battles and Financial Forecasts
County Administrator Jan Lesher presented the tentative budget of $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2025-26, projecting a cautious financial outlook due to federal and state uncertainties.
The budget includes a 0.0356 cent increase in the primary property tax rate and smaller increases for the library and flood control districts. Even with these small increases, County Administrator Lesher noted that "since 2020 in the last five years, this would result in an overall decrease of 33 cents."
Lesher's budget prioritizes quality services over austerity, with an emphasis on healthcare, early childhood education, justice system improvements, and eviction prevention.
The board also heard a sobering update on federal funding from Lisa Davis, who outlined potential impacts from federal budget cuts:
$12 million is currently owed to the county for the shelter and services program
The state has not received its second tranche of Community Services Block Grant funding ($3 million), with a county impact of $1.7 million
Based on 2024 spending, at least $26 million (50% of ongoing grants) are implicated in program eliminations or substantial reorganizations
Supervisor Cano highlighted the challenges the county faces with state cost shifts: "One in four of our general fund tax obligations, this county board of five has no say in because that's direction handed from the state legislature. So when we're talking about a shrinking pie and unfunded mandates and a desire to try to provide core services to our residents, out the door, we're already in a position where we are having to make tough decisions."
Employee Compensation and Benefits
The budget includes a 5% increase for county employees: 3.6% across the board on July 1 and 1.4% on January 1.
Art Cuarón provided information about employee healthcare costs, noting increases ranging from $10.52 to $12.48 per pay period, depending on coverage type. Supervisor Cano pointed out that this could significantly offset wage increases for lower-paid employees:
"For an employee making $35,000, 5% of an increase is being recommended by the Administrator is about $17.50. So the point that I am trying to make is that we have an obligation to provide a high standard of compensation for our employees and we have to also as a Board recognize that when we are celebrating these 5% increases for those at the lower end of the spectrum for compensation, they are going to be paying upwards of a fourth or nearly half of this 5% increase in insurance rate increases for healthcare."
Fire Safety Measures Take Priority
With wildfire season approaching, the board unanimously adopted fire safety measures for county-owned lands:
The board approved Resolution 2025-FC3 and Resolution 2025-16, imposing Stage II fire restrictions on land owned by Pima County and the Regional Flood Control District in unincorporated areas of Pima County.
Supervisor Allen successfully amended the measures to add the State Forester's recommendations:
"I have a question about the additional... The state forester's stage two risk puts a prohibition on discharging a firearm, including target shooting, with an exception if an individual is engaged in a lawful hunt pursuant to state, federal, and tribal laws and regulations. This is a significant contribution."
Fireworks Ordinance and Permits
The board also approved an amended fireworks ordinance with several key provisions:
Notification to neighbors within 1,000 feet of display sites
Fireworks displays cannot begin with winds exceeding 10 mph
Displays are limited to 30 minutes and must end by 10 p.m. (except New Year's Eve)
$10 million liability insurance requirement for operators
After hearing concerns from Kerry Welty, President of Fireworks Productions, the board removed a restriction limiting venues to five shows per year and approved four specific July 4th fireworks displays at Tucson Speedway, 49er Country Club, Tucson Country Club, and Skyline Country Club.
Ironwood Forest National Monument Protection
In a show of environmental protection, the board approved Resolution 2025-13, opposing the reduction of Ironwood Forest National Monument boundaries for resource extraction purposes. The resolution passed 4-1, with Supervisor Christy opposed.
Supervisor Allen championed the monument: "Ironwood Forest National Monument is one of several incredible treasures within District 3. It was a monument that was fought for 25 years by local residents, from organizations that we heard from today... An Ironwood tree can be up to 800 years old. So this monument is our equivalent of an old-growth forest."
Federal Funding Lawsuit
Following an executive session, the board voted 4-1 (with Supervisor Christy opposed) to authorize the county attorney "to initiate or join a lawsuit" related to federal funding disputes.
Votes and Outcomes
The meeting included numerous formal votes on budgets, policies, and permits. Here are the key votes:
Public Input Shows Strong Housing Support
Eight community members spoke during the call-to-public portion of the meeting, all of whom supported the affordable housing tax proposal. One speaker became emotional when discussing the prevalence of homelessness in the county. At the same time, another stated they were comfortable with the proposed increase and would welcome even higher taxes to address the housing crisis.
Glenda Avalos took time off work to speak: "The housing crisis is the second moral issue of the day. Gaza being the first starving children being the first. I've served my community over 20 years in different capacities. I work for Casa Maria. And on a daily basis, we see the struggle our community faces every single day."
Another speaker, Zion Alderate, spoke from personal experience:
"I'm here to ask you guys to vote yes for the 3-cent tax increase. I know the impacts that the sales tax, this housing tax, can have on our community in reducing homelessness, as I have been in a shelter plenty of times."
Get Involved
The issues discussed at this meeting directly impact everyone living in Pima County. Here's how you can make your voice heard:
Attend the next board meeting - The Board of Supervisors will take up the affordable housing tax issue again on June 3, 2025.
Contact your supervisor - Share your thoughts on these critical issues by emailing the Board at governingboard@pima.gov or contacting your district's supervisor directly.
Monitor the budget process - The final budget adoption will occur by June 17, 2025.
Stay informed - All county budget documents are available at pima.gov/budget.
Support independent journalism - These detailed analyses of local government decisions take time and resources. Your subscription to Three Sonorans helps ensure that community voices aren't drowned out by corporate interests and that critical context is provided around decisions that affect our most vulnerable neighbors.
What Do You Think?
What do you think about the debate over using property taxes to fund affordable housing? Is it better for the county to develop a comprehensive plan first, or is the need so urgent that funding should be secured immediately?
With federal funding becoming increasingly uncertain, how should Pima County prioritize services and find alternative revenue sources to meet community needs?
Do you see a double standard in how different community needs are funded? Why do some initiatives receive immediate support while others—like housing for our most vulnerable—face endless procedural hurdles?
Share your thoughts in the comments below and help build the community conversation we need to strengthen our public services and ensure no one is left behind in Pima County.
Quotes
"Not once does it ever talk about providing affordable housing, unaffordable housing, or housing of any kind. It's shocking how quickly off our mission as a Board we are delving into this very unjust way of taking from those who can afford it the most and giving it to those who can afford it the least." — Supervisor Steve Christy, opposing affordable housing initiative
"We did PEEPs with no plan, $10 million for early childhood education, which I willingly and I'm so glad I supported and continue to do so. And the plan kind of figured itself out after a year or two." — Supervisor Matt Heinz, pointing out inconsistent standards
"We know the problem. We feel the problem. We see the problem. And I think we are only seeing right now, given the economic uncertainty of the moment that we are in, that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg." — Supervisor Jennifer Allen, urging immediate action
"In 2020, 75% of the homes purchased in Tucson were affordable to a household earning the local median income. In 2023, this fell to 38% of homes sold." — Keith Bentele, University of Arizona researcher
"One in four of our general fund tax obligations, this county board of five has no say in because that's direction handed from the state legislature." — Supervisor Andrés Cano, on state cost shifts to counties
"An Ironwood tree can be up to 800 years old. So this monument is our equivalent of an old growth forest." — Supervisor Allen, on Ironwood Forest National Monument
People Mentioned with Memorable Quotes
Rex Scott (Chair, District 1): "Prudence and our duties to taxpayers dictate that we should not be talking about funding until we have reviewed the draft plan, revised it as needed, and adopted it." - Scott opposed immediate affordable housing funding.
Dr. Matt Heinz (District 2): "We've got the housing study. It gives us the top line numbers. Everything in this proposal is based on data." - Champion of the affordable housing proposal who called out inconsistency in planning requirements.
Jennifer Allen (Vice Chair, District 3): "We are paying for the lack of affordability in our housing through our jails, through our swollen and bloated courts, through law enforcement pushing people from location to location." - Strong advocate for housing investment.
Steve Christy (District 4): "The public has no clue. This is the first time we've heard most of these proposals today, and I think the public has the right to take its time and find out what's going on with their tax dollars." - Lone Republican who consistently opposed tax increases.
Andrés Cano (District 5): "We have an obligation to ensure that this money is planned. It lacks spending criteria. It does not establish guardrails or performance benchmarks." - The newest member who supported housing in principle but had implementation concerns.
Jan Lesher (County Administrator): "Since 2020 in the last five years this would result in an overall decrease of 33 cents." - Providing context that even with small increases, the overall tax rate has decreased.
Keith Bentele (UA Researcher): "This is a profoundly fast and really enormous change in our local economic landscape." - Describing the dramatic decline in housing affordability.
Glenda Avalos (Public Speaker): "The housing crisis is the second moral issue of the day. Gaza being the first starving children being the first." - Community member who took time off work to advocate for the housing proposal.
Kerry Welty (Fireworks Productions President): Successfully advocated for removing restrictions limiting venues to five shows per year.
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message!
