Official: Fed grant adds to pension burden

TUCSON — Pima County should not participate in a federal grant designed to help with border security costs until the U.S. government makes changes to ensure it is not abused by sheriff’s deputies hoping to boost their pensions by working overtime before they retire, County Manager Chuck Huckleberry said.

A county analysis found that Sheriff’s Department employees paid under Operation Stonegarden in recent years were disproportionately those approaching retirement, the Arizona Daily Star reports.

Operation Stonegarden was established to provide grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement to aid the federal government with border security.

The county’s analysis found that 215 sheriff’s employees received $2.3 million in overtime costs associated with Stonegarden missions in recent years and $2.1 million for non-Stonegarden overtime.

The analysis studied a sample of seven deputies, one lieutenant and three sergeants who had either retired and were approaching retirement and found that every dollar of Stonegarden overtime resulted in $6 in pension liability costs.

The analysis also found that the county’s Public Safety Personnel Retirement System contributions increased 65% from $13.3 million to $21.9 million during the same timeframe.

Huckelberry told the Star that the analysis confirmed a long-held “inkling that funding overtime, particularly Operation Stonegarden, was a contributor to our excess pension obligation costs.”

He says the county shouldn’t participate in the future without the federal government making changes.

“If the federal government desires to purchase local law enforcement services, they can do that in a manner which is less costly for them and more fiscally prudent for local governments,” Huckelberry said.

The Democratic-leaning county’s participation in Stonegarden has stirred controversy, with the Board of Supervisors earlier this year voting to halt acceptance of the grant before later voting to modify its acceptance of the grant to use $200,000 for humanitarian aid for asylum-seekers.

Supervisor Sharon Bronson, a Democrat whose district includes the part of the county along the U.S.-Mexico border, said she doesn’t oppose county law enforcement handling border security issues but wants those missions to be funded in a way “that is a less burden to our county taxpayers.”

“We’re just not being justly compensated,” Bronson said.

Pima County has received 44 grants in the last 12 years worth nearly $16.5 million, with roughly $10.5 million of that earmarked for overtime, mileage or travel and the rest for equipment, according to county documents.

Sheriff Mark Napier, a Republican, said the program has provided the department funding to address drug trafficking, human trafficking and humanitarian issues.

Napier hadn’t seen the analysis when interviewed by the Star but said a belief that the program is a burden because of perceived higher costs “fails to recognize” the program’s value.

Napier said there are a disproportionate number of older deputies volunteering to work Stonegarden overtime because “millennials are less inclined to work extra” because of where they are in their careers.

More veteran officers “perhaps have children, mortgages, etc., that some of the younger officers may not have,” Napier said.

Steve Christy, a Republican member of the Board of Supervisors, said it seemed there was “a lot of politics involved” in the analysis and that labeling Stonegarden as “wasted expense” was irresponsible.

He added that the Stonegarden grant also provides critical equipment funding to the Sheriff’s Department.

Richard Elías, a Democratic member of the board, said he would advocate for not receiving the grant at all, and that the county should scrutinize similar grants in the future that only provide funding in overtime.

Napier said it would be a “significant error” if the county votes to stop the grant.

“We’re the largest border county in the United States,” the Republican sheriff said. “To think we would walk away from this, apparently stating there is no public safety value in having it, I cannot concur with that. I do understand that there is a fiscal impact. But to suggest there is no benefit is simply flawed.”