January, 2025 | Arizona Capitol Times

Affordable housing bill passes committee, cities have alternate version

A new version of a bipartisan housing measure intended to help first-time homebuyers purchase starter properties advanced through a House panel Tuesday, but it may have to compete with an alternative proposal from Arizona’s cities and towns looking to achieve the same goal.

The House Commerce Committee on Tuesday passed HB2371, this year’s version of the “Arizona Starter Homes Act,” as lawmakers are preparing to negotiate with municipal leaders to avoid last year’s veto outcome.

“This is the start of the process,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, said. “We need to figure something out.”

The measure would prevent cities from regulating specific design features of homes, including walls, fences, garages and specific building materials used for construction. Under the bill, cities also couldn’t require minimum lot sizes to be built any larger than 1,500 square feet for new developments that are at least five acres in size.

It is nearly identical to last year’s version of the bill, which was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs and widely opposed by municipalities.

This year’s bill now includes a provision to address a concern from the U.S. Department of Defense of allowing higher density zones near military installations, primarily Luke Air Force Base located west of Glendale.

One of the main holdups of the bill is the difference in opinion to go about addressing housing affordability between municipal leaders and homebuilders.

“Starter homes have been outlawed in many communities, especially in the greater Phoenix metro area,” said Spencer Kamps, the vice president of Legislative Affairs for the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.

Kamps referenced a specific project a builder has proposed in San Tan Valley for $260,000. He said adding a garage to the home would bump the price up to $350,000 but the builder has repeatedly been denied getting the project approved by municipalities in the Phoenix area.

“They never get to the (city council) because staff says no,” Kamps said. “We want entry-level housing.”

But city leaders say there’s no guarantee the Starter Homes Act will result in affordable units being built since the measure doesn’t include a provision that conditionally requires lower prices for homes.

Nick Ponder, the senior vice president for governmental affairs at HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, lobbying for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said another major concern for cities is that there’s nothing in the bill that would prevent starter homes from being bought by corporations to then be sold at a higher price.

“In reducing lot sizes, that doesn’t necessarily translate to affordability,” Ponder said. “A 5,000 square foot lot in Queen Creek is $400,000 or $350,000.”

The median home price in Arizona as of December was about $450,000 according to the real estate brokerage Redfin. That’s an increase from $287,000 from December 2019.

Supporters of the bill say the lower lot sizes would naturally lead to lower home prices, since less materials are being used to construct homes.

“You have builders that want to bring these homes to market but can’t. They can’t do it,” said Jake Hinman, a political strategist with Mavrik Policy Group representing the Arizona Neighborhood Project.

The bill would only apply to cities with a population of over 70,000, which mostly applies to municipalities within the greater Phoenix metro. Biasiucci said he would like to take the population minimum requirement off but it was the figure that got him enough votes to get the measure out of both the House and Senate last year.

Both Reps. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake; and Janeen Connolly, D-Tempe, said during the commerce committee hearing that they would like to see affordable housing policy extended to smaller municipalities.

“Not one mention of the places I represent,” Blackman said. “Are we just going to get the scraps at the table in Legislative District 7?”

An alternate “Starter Homes Act.”

Officials from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns provided details to the Arizona Capitol Times of an alternate bill to Biasiucci’s measure Tuesday. The bill has not been filed yet but the measure has been sent to the Legislative Council to fine tune the language of the measure.

The League’s bill has the same goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing supply. Tom Savage, the legislative director for the League, said Tuesday the League is looking at a slightly bigger minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, which would better allow cities to regulate density and ensure new homes have appropriate city services.

To address the League’s main issue of guaranteed housing affordability within the bill, is the measure would implement a provision that requires developers to sell properties to an individual or family who makes no more than 120% of the area median income the home is located in.

HB2371 proposes a 10-foot distance, or setback, in front and behind structures from the property line. The League’s bill proposes a reduced setback as well but Savage said it won’t be as small as 10 feet. The legislation also gives cities some flexibility to require certain design features like a patio or a specific type of landscaping

“(HB2371) tries to apply a one-size-fits all to say Buckeye is no different than Phoenix. That’s not the case,” Savage said. “If it’s affordable, it will be met with a relaxing of regulatory requirements and zoning requirements to achieve that affordability.”

League officials didn’t say who is sponsoring their legislation since the sponsor doesn’t want to be named yet.

The League would also like to remove a provision from any proposal that goes forward that states the “statewide housing crisis is caused in no small part by highly restrictive regulations imposed by municipalities,” like HB2371 does.

In the last five years, Arizona cities and towns have authorized more than 350,000 housing units, according to data from the U.S. Census. League Deputy Director Rene Guillen told the Arizona Capitol Times that 220,000 of those units have been completed.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler, urged cities and homebuilders to work with Biasiucci to get agreeable legislation to the governor’s desk.

“He (Biasiucci) wants a bill signed. I think he wants to get something done and I’m not sure in the present form, that’s going to pass this test. So I look forward to hopefully some compromise,” Weninger said.

Planned Parenthood set to resume abortions beyond 15 weeks amid legal clarity

Planned Parenthood could be just days away from once again offering abortions beyond 15 weeks.

In a new court filing, attorneys for the organization are pointing out that no one has come forward to defend the 15-week limit which they challenged after voters approved Proposition 139 in November. That initiative places a right to terminate a pregnancy into the Arizona Constitution.

Planned Parenthood said at the time that the initiative, by itself, did not actually void the 15-week limit. After the election, the organization said it would not resume providing abortions beyond the 15-week limit unless and until there is a clear ruling.

So Planned Parenthood filed suit against the state, asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz to get such a declaration.

Only thing is, Attorney General Kris Mayes told the judge she actually agrees with those who filed suit. And with that, now the attorneys for the challengers are asking Moskowitz to declare the law to be unconstitutional and permanently bar its enforcement.

“As all parties agree, the ban prohibits physicians from providing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — months before viability — upon pain of severe criminal, civil and professional penalties,” wrote Karin Scherner Aldama, lead attorney for Planned Parenthood.

The only thing left now is for the judge to rule on her motion.

Moskowitz may have little choice.

What makes that likely to happen is that, despite comments by abortion foes after Prop 139 was approved, no one else has sought to defend the 15-week limit.

Senate President Warren Petersen, an abortion foe, said at the time that he was “looking into every option’” to keep the law in place despite the public vote. To date, nothing has been filed in court.

Ditto the Center for Arizona Policy.

Cathi Herrod, president of the anti-abortion group pointed out after voter approval of Proposition 139 that it did not create an absolute right to abortion. She said it permits state regulations of abortions — even beyond 15 weeks — if there is a “compelling state interest.”’

“An abortion after 15 weeks increases the risk of a woman having significant complications, including infection, heavy bleeding, and injury to the uterus,’” Herrod said at the time.

And now?

“The lawsuit and General Mayes’ response reflect the extreme abortion position that supports abortion up until birth,” Herrod said. “It is a sad day.”

But CAP has not filed any paperwork in this case. And Herrod said she does not know whether anyone else will intervene. Even if someone were to now come forward, it could be too late, as the lawsuit was filed nearly two months ago.

Abortions had been available in Arizona until fetal viability — generally considered between 22 and 24 weeks — until 2022.

That year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the historic 1973 ruling that declared that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Mark Brnovich, who had been state attorney general at the time, then got a judge to conclude that that decision legally resurrected a territorial-era law — never repealed even after Roe — outlawing the procedure except to save the life of the mother.

The state Court of Appeals later ruled that a 15-week ban approved by lawmakers before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling applies. But that, in turn, was overturned last year by the Arizona Supreme Court, reinstating the 1864 law.

In the interim, however, state lawmakers narrowly voted to repeal the old law, leaving the 15-week ban in place.

That measure, approved by 61% of voters, bars the state from adopting or enforcing any law that denies, restricts or interferes with the fundamental right of abortion prior to fetal viability.

There also are provisions, not at issue here, to allow post-viability abortions to protect the life or health of the mother. But Planned Parenthood announced it would not perform post 15-week abortions with the law on the books, due to potential penalties, unless and until a judge declared the statute unenforceable.

The issue, their attorneys argued, starts with the fact that the law spells out that any doctor who intentionally or knowingly violates that 15-week law is guilty of a class 6 felony. That carries a presumptive sentence of one year in state prison.

Criminal liability aside, state law also allows the Arizona Medical Board to conduct its own independent investigations to determine if a physician has engaged in “unprofessional conduct,” something that includes violating any federal or state law and, specifically, committing a felony. The board then has the power to suspend or revoke a doctor’s license and impose penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

“The ban penalizes health care providers who assist their patients … forcing them to stop providing the critical care their patients seek in accordance with their best medical judgment under the threat of criminal prosecution, severe civil sanctions, and revocation of their medical licenses,’” the challengers said in filing suit.

Now, with no legal opposition, they say the path is clear for Moskowitz to act.

“If the ban is not permanently enjoined, pregnant Arizonans will continue to suffer the deprivation of their fundamental rights and serious harm to their physical, psychological, and dignitary well being, as well as that of their families,” the new filing states. It also says failure to declare the 15-week law unenforceable will affect medical providers, keeping them from “providing constitutionally protected health care to their patients, contrary to their medical and ethical duties.”

“There are thus no material factual disputes to resolve: Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the pleadings because, as the parties agree, the ban is unconstitutional as a matter of law.”

Not all abortion providers have waited for Moskowitz to rule.

One of those who filed suit was Dr. Paul Isaacson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Family Planning Associates Medical Group.

He noted that, despite the lack of a court ruling, Mayes had said her office won’t take any actions against any individual accused of violating the law while the case is being litigated. And Isaacson’s website says he provides surgical abortions up to 23 weeks and six days from the start of a woman’s last menstrual period.

Other major providers, including Camelback Family Planning, advertise they currently perform abortions only up to 15.6 weeks of pregnancy.

Judge: President Petersen, Ben Toma lack standing in national monument suit

A federal judge has tossed out a bid by Republican state lawmakers to overturn the designation of nearly a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon that the Biden administration had dedicated as a national monument.

In a ruling filed Jan. 27, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McNamee said Senate President Warren Petersen and Ben Toma, the former speaker of the House, lack standing to even bring a claim in federal court over creation last year of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. That right, the judge said, belongs to the executive branch.

More to the point, neither Gov. Katie Hobbs nor Attorney General Kris Mayes chose to challenge the 2023 designation. And McNamee said that doesn’t entitle lawmakers to hire their own attorneys and step in.

But the win could lead to another legal fight.

President Trump, in his first term in office, announced he was cutting the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah in half. And he also trimmed the Bears Ears National Monument by 85%.

Those cuts were restored when Biden took office in 2021, though there still is a pending lawsuit over that legal question.

But Perry Wheeler, spokesman for Earthjustice, which sought to intervene in this case and is involved in the Utah litigation, said any move by Trump would be illegal.

“Nothing in the Antiquities Act (which allows a president to create monuments) authorizes a president to remove parcels of land from a national monument, or otherwise to diminish or dismantle an existing monument,” he said.

A spokesman for Steve Montenegro, who succeeded Toma, said the new speaker is “reviewing the ruling and evaluating next steps.”

Petersen said the state is likely to appeal.

“We are confident this unconstitutional land grab will be reversed either by the courts or by the Trump administration,” he said.

But the ruling cheered Mayes,

“I speak for the state in federal court,” she said, calling the actions by Petersen and Toma a “blatant attempt at a power grab in this case overstepped their authority and wasted taxpayer resources.”

This case stems from a lawsuit filed last year by the pair who called Biden’s actions an illegal “land grab.”

Both acknowledged that the 1906 federal Antiquities Act does allow a president to set aside parcels of federal land, which is solely what is involved here, for protection.

But they say such a proclamation has to be limited to historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest. More to the point, they argue that such designations have to be confined to the “smallest area compatible” with the care and management of the items to be protected.

And they contend the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukeveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, the formal name for 1,462 square miles of the site which the White House says translates in part in the Havasupai language to “where indigenous peoples roam” and in Hopi to “our ancestral footprints,” meets neither requirement.

“Congress passed the Antiquities Act to protect just that: antiquities,” the lawsuit says. “It did not pass the law to allow the Biden administration to declare every inch of federal land a federal forest, cut off from all but those it selects.”

They also argued that there is damage to the state from everything from the inability to manage adjacent state trust lands to the loss of jobs and revenue because uranium mining would not be allowed.

McNamee said all that is irrelevant.

“The Legislature is not authorized to bring claims on behalf of the state,” he wrote.

“Arizona law expressly provides that the attorney general is tasked with representing the state in any action in federal court,” the judge said. “Consequently, litigating on the state’s behalf is the prerogative of the executive branch, not the Legislature.”

And Hobbs was not interested in such a challenge, having actually urged Biden to create the monument.

Attorneys for lawmakers, hoping to get around that, told McNamee they were not suing on behalf of the state but on behalf of the Legislature and the damages it would sustain, things like having to spend time and money addressing the impact of the proclamation. The judge, however, said there is no precedent for such a claim.

He was no more impressed by claims that creation of the monument also created a right to the water necessary to sustain it.

McNamee said nowhere do the lawyers for the Legislature attempt to quantify what water might be needed and how any of that results in a “concrete injury” to the state. And he pointed out that the proclamation itself says “nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to alter the valid existing water rights of any party.”

The judge also dismissed claims that creation of the monument will impact uranium mining. He noted that none has been allowed since at least 2012 when the Secretary of Interior withdrew pretty much the same federal lands from mining through 2032, if not beyond, a decision that was upheld by a different federal judge.

Legislative leaders had one other argument. They said if uranium deposits become inaccessible within the monument that undermines the ability of Arizona utilities to get the fuel they need for their power plants.

“A significant portion of energy produced and consumed in Arizona comes from nuclear power,” the attorneys for lawmakers argued, with the figure in 2022 hitting 29% of total electricity net generation in the state.

What makes that important, the lawsuit said, is that, for the moment, domestic nuclear energy production is dependent on foreign imports of uranium. And that, GOP leaders said, puts nuclear power at risk if foreign nations suspend uranium exports to the United States.

“There is every reason to believe such a risk exists,” Petersen and Toma said. “Many uranium imports come from foreign companies owned by nations, like Russia, with interests adverse to the interests of the United States and who ‘leverage’ their control over those companies `to further geopolitical ambitions.’ ”

McNamee sniffed at all that.

“This argument is exceedingly speculative,” he wrote. “The court concludes that legislative plaintiffs’ fears of potential geopolitical shifts that may impact domestic uranium process in the future are inadequate to support an injury-in-fact,” McNamee said, the standard for filing suit.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice also had asked the judge to rule that only Congress, and not the president, has the power to undo a national monument. McNamee declined, saying it was sufficient for him to rule that the challengers in this case lack standing to sue.

‘Starter home’ bill to be heard in committee

A sweeping proposal for more affordable houses that Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed last year is back with only minor changes.

Rep. Leo Biasiucci’s effort to address Arizona’s housing crisis is to spur the construction of smaller and cheaper “starter homes” has only one tweak from last year’s version: the exclusion of areas around military airports that Hobbs pointed to as a major issue in her veto letter. But Hobbs cited larger concerns as well, calling the proposal filled with “unexplored, unintended consequences that are of great concern” because they placed such major limits on what could be required for new housing.

The proposal from the Lake Havasu City Republican, set for discussion Tuesday at the House Commerce Committee, is one of many expected to be debated this legislative session as the state’s housing crisis continues unabated.

Four major housing bills were adopted last year, including ones allowing backyard casitas in many areas, the redevelopment of commercial buildings into apartments and a requirement for large cities to allow duplexes and triplexes in central parts of larger cities now zoned for single-family homes.

But those are just the start of what’s needed, according to backers of a statewide housing overhaul. At a news conference two weeks ago at the Capitol, Democratic and Republican lawmakers gathered to announce they would band together to craft bills to address the problem.

“Affordable housing is not a right,” said Rep. Walt Blackman. “However it’s a responsibility as legislators that we provide our next generation with the opportunity to have the type of opportunity that we had, the opportunity that I had, to buy an affordable home.”

Blackman said the issue is bipartisan.

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, said the new housing caucus would have regular lunchtime meetings to discuss what kinds of new laws are needed with anyone who wants to attend – Hobbs included.

“There are so many different layers to this crisis and it’s not just one bill,” Ortiz said.

“Not one bill is ever going to be the magic bullet for this crisis,” she said. “It’s going to be a lot of pieces of legislation working together, and that’s what our bipartisan housing caucus is going to be focused on.”

The state’s shortage of housing can be tied to the mortgage and foreclosure crisis that began in 2007 and that saw metro Phoenix with the highest rate of foreclosures in the nation. That led builders to cut the number of homes they were building for many years even as Arizona’s population continued to increase.

The rise of the short-term rental industry has also been a major factor, with homes that were formally rented out on long-term leases being converted to short-term rentals marketed on Airbnb and Vrbo websites. And soaring home prices in the past five years have kept pressure on regular rentals, with those prices soaring as well.

But in an interview with Capitol Media Services, Biasiucci said that he’s also convinced Arizona’s housing crisis needs a rules reset to prompt the development of smaller, cheaper homes that are affordable. And that means requiring cities and towns to approve new developments that are vastly different from the standard tract homes developed over decades across the state by allowing builders to construct cheaper homes.

His “starter homes” proposal sets minimum lot sizes at just 1,500 feet for any development covering 5 acres or more – the actual size of an average home in the 1960s – and bars cities from requiring that homes be set further than 10 feet from the front and 5 feet from the sides of the home. Cities could not require tile roofs or block walls or any other design element like paint colors.

“I think if you remove those kind of silly requirements that belong maybe in an HOA, not in a city, that’s going to keep the cost down.” Biasiucci said. “Because when you’re requiring a tile roof or you’re requiring a brick wall, or you’re requiring certain paints, or you’re requiring an enclosed garage, I think this is the city overstepping their authority.”

He said property owners should be making those decisions, not cities and towns. But he expects opposition from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns again this year.

“I know that there’s only going to be pushback from the League and in these cities and towns because they want to have that control,” he said. “But we just feel like it’s gone to a point where it’s not even making it affordable anymore for people to buy a starter home.”

It was the League, which represents Arizona’s 91 municipalities, that led the charge against the major overhaul of zoning regulations last year.”

As a compromise, the measure applied only to those with populations over 70,000, cutting out all but the 19 largest cities. Even at that, it barely passed the Senate last year and had only two votes to spare in the House, although both votes were bipartisan.

Hobbs’ veto killed the plan.

League Executive Director Tom Belshe called last year’s proposal one that “effectively gets rid of single-family zoning and deregulates the standards for development.” And he said the limits on set-back requirements would lead to neighbors “high-fiving from one window to the next between houses.”

The starter home bill is just one of many that have been filed this year as Democrats and Republicans vow to enact legislation designed to address the state’s shortage of housing of all kinds. And more are in the works.

Those already filed include a measure that would allow churches to develop parts of their properties into apartments if some are reserved for low-income tenants.

A similar measure was introduced by a Democratic lawmaker that passed the House last year but never made it out of the Senate. This year, it’s sponsored by Republican Rep. David Livingston of Peoria, who chairs the appropriations committee.

Two measures by Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, take aim at the housing problem from a different perspective.

One would require cities to accept any building material in a home if it is allowed in other construction. The other is squarely aimed at vacation rentals by reclassifying many of them for tax purposes as commercial properties.

Biasiucci said that measure would make it “a whole new ballgame” for big investors who now buy up homes to turn them into vacation rentals.

“You would hope that when you reclassify them from a residential property to an actual commercial business, that’s going to stop some of this stuff,” he said.

And Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, has a measure designed to address the homeless crisis by requiring every city over 75,000 in population to have enough shelter space for a quarter of the people living on their streets and establish a judicial diversion program for homeless people. A new state grant program would help offset the cost, although the dollar amount is not specified.

Despite being in the minority party, Miranda said she believes her proposal can get enough support to pass.

“There’s so many different layers, and it’s such a complex issue that each of us kind of grab a layer, a piece of this problem,” Miranda said.

“The last two years, I’ve been working on homelessness,” she said. “This effort here is homeless prevention, which will stop the madness that I’m seeing working with the current homelessness on the street.”

Biasiucci said he’d give it a look. And even if he can’t support her proposal other Republicans might.

“The whole point is, let’s start somewhere. Let’s get the conversation rolling,” he said.

The alternative, Biasiucci said, is to do nothing. And that, he said, is unacceptable.

“We can’t get to a situation that’s happening now in Sedona,” he said.

“Sedona’s solution was we’re going to let you sleep in your car at the park as a place to live for the workers,” Biasiucci said. “That is absolutely insane.”

Legislature works on plan to save financially mismanaged school district

A school district facing a fiscal crisis may be able to pay teachers and staff, but only if the Legislature can pass a bill directing the county treasurer to disburse the funds first.

Educators at Isaac School District are due a paycheck tomorrow. But with a cumulative $28.5 million in unpaid debt to Maricopa county, Treasurer John Allen refuses to disburse any more funds and claims doing so would run afoul of state law.

The district, the receiver, the governor, the county, the State Board of Education, the Department of Education, and lawmakers have continued to convene and call for a legislative fix to ensure teachers are paid and school continues Wednesday.

hotel, shelter, homeless, Scottsdale, Gress, David Ortega — Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix

Rep. Matt Gress, R-Scottsdale, introduced a bill to allow county treasurers to register $2.5 million in warrants, if approved by the receiver, regardless of whether the district has enough money in its bank account. The provision comes in an amendment to a bill requiring the removal of the superintendent and school board if a district is placed under receivership.

Gress said the bill is a temporary fix, with $2.5 million to cover two weeks, or one pay period. He said he hopes it gives the Legislature time to come up with a more permanent, comprehensive solution.

“There’s an immediate term challenge, which is keeping the lights on and keeping classes in session right now. Then there’s the longer term issue of how to resolve the $28.5 million dollar debt that Isaac owes and keeping the lights on for the rest of the school year,” Gress said. “The legislature is not very good at moving quickly. So we had to tailor the first bill that could buy us some more time as we iron out details for a larger bill to follow in two weeks.”

Democrats are still pushing for a more concrete fix.

“While I appreciate Gress’ work on this bill, we need a permanent fix, at least a bill that gets us to the end of the school year,” Rep. Quantá Crews, D-Phoenix, said.

The State Board of Education placed Isaac School District under receivership in a meeting Jan. 14 after finding the district had overspent its budget by about $12 million.

But with the district far in the red, Maricopa County Treasurer John Allen said he planned to halt payments, throwing staff paychecks and essential school expenditures in limbo.

The district is seeing some reprieve, as the federal government returned $6 million in Elementary and Secondary Emergency Relief, or ESSER, funds and Superintendent Tom Horne floated the possibility of the Dept. of Education advancing about $4 million, in state aid.

But the funding would have to go through the county treasurer, and the treasurer’s office contends state law does not allow it to keep digging a deeper debt.

“The district must demonstrate the ability to offset its existing fund deficits and registered warrants before subsequent expenses can be honored. $6 million in ESSER money would reduce the amount that needs to be repaid to Maricopa County, but the district’s finances are still negative overall,” Jordan Dale, chief of Staff for Allen, said in a statement. “We are waiting to hear the proposed solutions for offsetting the remaining amount that needs to be repaid.”

In a letter on Jan. 24, Allen and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chair Thomas Galvin outlined the current financial situation to the district’s receiver, Keith Kenny. Allen and Thomas said any incoming funds should first be obligated to an existing $3.9 million debt.

Allen and Galvin wrote that the “district faces a far larger fiscal challenge than was initially understood,” and noted research showed Isaac School District has received approximately $28.5 million in financial support from the county “which the district has no clear plan to repay.”

The breakdown notes $16.6 million in fund deficits currently carried by the Treasurer’s Office, $8 million in Tax Anticipation Notes due for repayment in July 2025 and $3.9 million in registered warrants, which they note is the first obligation to be paid off from any incoming monies.

“As you can see, Maricopa County has extended every resource possible to the school district and is now at its statutory limit,” Allen and Galvin wrote in the letter. “As education is a state responsibility under the Arizona constitution, we encourage you to seek appropriate solutions from the state.”

Gress introduced the possible solution as an amendment to House Bill 2610, which requires receivers assigned to financially unsound school districts to terminate school superintendents without a severance package and remove every sitting school board member.

The accountability piece is key to Republican support.

In a press release, majority leadership asked Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell to launch a criminal investigation into the district.

“Our sympathies begin and end with the students, faculty, and parents of Isaac,” House Speaker Steve Montenegro said in a statement. “At the heart of this crisis are more than 4,800 students and hundreds of employees who have been abandoned by failed district leadership. The falsification of financial records and the mismanagement of public funds are a betrayal of trust and must be investigated immediately. The people of Arizona deserve to know how this happened, and those responsible must be held accountable.”

As for Democrats, Rep. Cesar Aguilar, D-Phoenix, noted the Isaac school board has been “more than willing to help with this situation,” and again emphasized they were given false information.

“Our caucus has told the Republicans, we want a clean and simple bill. Let’s not politicize this. There’s 5,000 kids that need to be in school,” Aguilar said.

As for the educators and students at Isaac, Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, again pressured the county treasurer to disburse payments and called for an immediate solution from the Legislature, though she expressed little confidence lawmakers could get it done in time for payday.

“Those of us who have worked with the Legislature know that it doesn’t happen overnight. Nothing is that easy down here,” Garcia said.

She said at this time, teachers and staff do not know whether they will show up for work Wednesday but plan to discuss it at a meeting Tuesday.

“The immediacy of these children who are anywhere from four to 14 years old, and people who have worked in this district and for the state for over 30 years, who live everywhere in this county, they’re the ones who are going to suffer the consequences,” Garcia said. “Our priority is the kids and the educators. The debt needs to be dealt with, but this has to be first.”

The House is set to take up Gress’ bill in a special meeting of the Education committee at 2 p.m. Tuesday.

Following in my father’s steps

The call to public service has been stamped on me from my earliest memories. In the Way family, it was never a question of if we would serve, but when. Sitting on the floor of the Legislature, I watched my father vote on bills to protect our individual freedoms, lower taxes, roll back burdensome regulations, and safeguard our kids in the new world of the internet. I may have even been the one to pull the lever a time or two. I heard him argue articulately and passionately from the floor. There was no better education in civics and American government.

I’ve always been a political junkie. But I didn’t feel the political ‘call’ myself until age 34.

I was married with four children and a few degrees under my belt. Life was good. I thought I was making change in the world through my work in school choice and charter school development – and I was. But Covid and the ensuing crackdown on liberties I never thought would be in question activated me politically. I felt powerless to protect my freedoms and my family from government intrusion. I knew my kids were watching how I would respond. I also knew I was young, and hadn’t been tested politically. But my dad has always taught me, “Don’t wait your turn. Just step forward and serve.” And so I launched an unlikely campaign for the Arizona House and jumped in with both feet. That’s the kind of resolve my family has always embraced.

I quickly learned that precinct committeemen (PCs) are the unsung heroes of every district. They stay through the ups and downs, year in and year out, growing the party, building community connections, and driving voter turnout. I came to love and learn from so many of our PCs. I also learned you have to earn respect and trust. Not everyone will be a fan. A small group began to whisper about whether I met the residency requirements to run. I was shocked. I’ve spent the majority of the last 15 years living in and around the district. Arizona has been home to every significant moment in my adult life. It’s where I built my career in school choice and law, where I met my wife of 13 years and where we settled down to raise our four children.

After I won the primary, I experienced a renewed spirit of unity in our party as we linked arms to defeat the radical Left. But the attacks continued when my opponents, fueled by dark money interests, tried to take us down with the same tactics. Despite their best efforts to keep me from being seated, the rule of law stood, the voters overwhelmingly spoke, and when the dust had settled on November 6, I was proud to be the top-vote getter. When the results were announced, my dad was one of the first to hug me. “Congratulations, son,” he said. And I felt the baton being passed.

Now my own children are watching. How will dad handle the issues and crises of the day?

I entered office with a clear call from the voters ringing in my ears. Secure our border. Make sure our police have backing. Stop wokism in my kid’s classroom. Get the government out of my way. Keep taxes low. Serve with integrity.

The work is underway. I’ve already sponsored and co-sponsored a handful of bills including, protecting our minors online, safeguarding parental rights, closing loopholes in our election processes, and getting tougher on crimes involving human-trafficking and fentanyl. If only that six-year old sitting on the floor beside my father’s desk could have seen this day. I wonder about my own children’s futures. I know this. When they are ready, I will gladly hand the baton to the next generation of Ways.

Rep. Michael Way, a Republican, serves Legislative District 15 in the Arizona State House.

Reach out and work together with a kind heart

As an outreach director and person of the Jewish faith, I support building bridges with ALL diverse communities. Putting into legislation what should be in everyone’s heart is an unconscionable hypocrisy.

schools, overrides, bond elections, K-12, vouchers, vote, elections, Scottsdale Unified School District — Joanie Rose

Each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Having respect, understanding, empathy, and kindness towards our fellow man does not need to be put into a document.

Living by the “Golden Rules” should be how we live our lives. In today’s world, racism, hate, or any type of discrimination against an individual or group should NEVER be tolerated or accepted. “You are judged by what you do, not what you say!

Shame on those who preach the Bible one day and stab their neighbor in the back less than 24 hours later. This is happening much too frequently with no consequence for the perpetrator’s behavior. Isn’t it time to look into your mirror and ask, “what are you doing to make this world a better place”?

Sadly, too many of you will not listen, work amicably with others, or find solutions that will make all lives better.

Power, greed, selfishness, and intolerance seems to be the goal of government today.

It is so much easier to reach out and work together when you have a kind heart and caring attitude.

Why not try to be a better person in all you do!

Republicans re-elect Gina Swoboda as Arizona party chair

Incumbent chair Gina Swoboda fended off a challenge from former Rep. Cory McGarr in the race for chair of the Republican Party of Arizona Saturday.

In a hand count, Swoboda beat McGarr by 220 votes, collecting 978 votes to McGarr’s 758. A total of 1,736 Republicans voted in today’s meeting.

Swoboda, senior elections advisor to the Senate, took the helm in 2024 following former chair Jeff DeWit’s resignation. He ceded his office after U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake leaked a recording where DeWit, on order from people “back east,” discouraged her from running for office.

During Swoboda’s time at the top of the AZGOP, the party increased its majority by two seats in the House and a seat in the Senate, wrung the greatest swing state margin for President Donald Trump and raised $20 million, with 71% of party funds going to directly contact voters.

She picked up an endorsement from Trump in both her first shot for chair and in her bid for reelection and received support this time around from both federal and state lawmakers.

But early on, Swoboda faced a challenge from McGarr, former LD17 representative and the only incumbent Republican to be booted from his seat after losing to Democrat Kevin Volk in the 2024 election.

In his bid for chair, McGarr saw support from Kari Lake, Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, national committeewoman and expelled house member Liz Harris and Turning Point USA affiliates.

In his candidate speech, McGarr said both Hoffman and Harris “independently” approached him about his candidacy and “to say current leadership talks the talk but fails to walk the walk.”

McGarr said his gripes and concerns were with getting “rid of the establishment’s grip on our party,” and said he was “not content with our leadership leaving the door wide open for them to come back into power.”

He further claimed the AZGOP refused to “lift a finger” to help conservative school board candidates, a nonpartisan office, and said he wanted to see the party work from the governor’s office all the way down ballot.

In her remarks, Swoboda again trotted out the record of the party under her purview and emphasized the need for “experienced hand at the reins.”

She said she believed the party to be “more unified than the entire time I’ve been a PC and that’s over 10 years.” She responded to McGarr’s claim of Swoboda “leaving the door open” to establishment Republican control.

“The party belongs to you, and as long as I am in this chair, no organization, or person, or PAC, or consultant is going to take away the power from the state committeemen, the grassroots, who are the true people,” Swoboda said.

Republicans reelected Swoboda, and elected Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould as treasurer and Nickie Kelley, a former candidate for Maricopa County School Superintendent, as secretary.

A wrapped statutory meeting fired a proverbial starting gun for the 2026 election, with a lingering question of who will emerge victorious in top state offices.

As for the governor’s race, Congressman Andy Biggs announced he is running for governor in his remarks to the state committee today after filing a statement of interest Tuesday.

“I am jumping in formally,” Biggs said. “It is now time to Make Arizona Great Again.”

Sporting a pair of American flag Crocs, Biggs first polled the party on whether he should get a haircut. He then asked who would support him in his bid for governor, prompting a sea of raised vote cards.

He is likely to face off against Karrin Taylor Robson, who has yet to file a statement of interest or formally launch her campaign, but has already received support from Trump and seen a PAC, dubbed Building a Better Arizona, form to support her candidacy.

Will Humble: Agency head turned policy wonk

Will Humble spent decades at the Department of Health Services, including six years as director, before transitioning to advocacy. A self-described policy wonk, Humble reflected on his career in an interview with Arizona Capitol Times and said he isn’t done just yet.

What originally drew you to public health?

I was kind of a lost soul in my early 20s. I didn’t know what I wanted to do for a living. I got a bachelor’s degree at NAU in business. I worked at a hardware store … and I hated it. It wasn’t something I cared about and I need something to care about if I’m gonna work, or at least I want to care about it … So I went back to ASU and got another bachelor’s degree in microbiology. One of the guest lecturers was a guy from the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department – guy’s name was Mike Sparks. He was giving a guest lecture in an epidemiology class. A light bulb went on, because he started talking about public health and vector control and mosquito abatement and food safety … I left class that day like, “This actually sounds interesting.” So, I took the test to be a restaurant inspector, and that was my first public health job. So that’s what got me started in public health, a guest lecture on a random day.

What got you into the policy side of public health?

After my 10,000th inspection, I went back and got a master’s in public health at Berkeley, and then I came back, and that’s when I got my job at the state health department, just as a regular worker doing risk assessments for Superfund sites in Arizona. It wasn’t really until I was about 40, in about the year 2000 when I started getting into the kind of jobs where you actually make policy decisions. So my first bureau chief job was all the infectious disease programs. Policy became part of my job, because I got to start making decisions. That’s when I started following legislation. I think I can remember one of the first bills that I really paid a lot of attention to was a bill that passed through this House and Senate that would have said, “You can’t let people ride in the back of pickup trucks.” It passed, but Governor [Jane)]Hull vetoed it, and I remember thinking, “Why?” Her veto signing statement said, “It’s too hard on Navajo, Hopi people who buy their truck for their family.” I put myself in the shoes of a governor. Here’s this obviously a good bill because everyone needs to wear a seat belt … and yet, she vetoed it. But then I thought about, well, OK, people are making huge investment decisions on the family scale, and this would make it a lot harder. That’s the first bill I remember taking a real interest in.

You were at DHS for decades. What made you stick around for so long and what ultimately made you leave?

I’ve always liked my work. When I was a restaurant inspector, it became a point pretty early on, that I’m making a living at this, but I’m not really learning anything … But that never happened at [DHS]. In some ways, I got lucky, because after about three years, the next position would tend to open up. So I had a really nice career pace, where first I had three direct reports, and then I had 10, and then I had an office where I had 30, and then I had 150 as a bureau chief … accepting more and more responsibility, but at a pace that was manageable … And then-Governor [Janet] Napolitano suddenly quit to become Homeland Security secretary … So there was a guy who was going to become [Gov. Jan] Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, Brian McNeil. Brian’s like, “meet me in this parking lot at 8:30 in the morning,” … So we three deputies met, and [McNeil] said, “We need a director for this agency, call me at 8:30 tomorrow morning and tell me which one of you three is willing to do it, but realize that this gig is probably for 30 to 90 days, and then we expect to have somebody different in the job after that.” No sooner did he drive away, then [they] looked at me, and they’re like, “It has to be you.” … It was really hard at the beginning, but it wasn’t operationally hard because I knew the place inside and out. I have to say, I’ve thanked her for this many times, Susan Gerard left a really good team in place, and it makes such a huge difference in an agency that size to have talented people around you. Often many of them were good at things that I’m not that good at, and I’m good at things that they’re not good at. We had a diversity of personality and interests and that is partly what made the job so fun, is that I had people I could rely on that I already knew … It was a great run, and I loved working for Brewer and we still stay in touch. What I appreciated the most is that … there wasn’t a whole lot of micromanagement that was going on. Then [Gov. Doug] Ducey came in and they asked me to stay and I said yes. But it wasn’t very long before I realized this was going to be very different. Not ideologically, because they’re both pretty conservative, but the expectations about how you can make decisions … was gonna be completely different. And I’m like, it’s been a great six-year run, but the next six aren’t gonna be the same.

Why did you decide to stick around at the Capitol in an advocacy role?

Partly it’s just fun, like policy is my hobby. I know that’s a weird, wonky thing to say, but it is. Not just Arizona public policy … I like to read about things that are happening around the world, and not just public health policy, but just policy in general. Because I was in the executive branch for so long, I think I add a sort of street cred-perspective on policy matters, and combine that with the fact that I don’t have any clients. I mean, I’m a registered lobbyist, but only as the representative for the Public Health Association. So my only client is good policy. I don’t want to retire, I don’t know what would happen, it kind of freaks me out to even think about. I feel like I’m providing some value added. Some people listen to me and some people, whatever I say they do the opposite. Although I have to say there’s a big difference between running a state agency and being in my position. Honestly, it’s more fun to make decisions than it is to try to influence decisions. Although I’m not complaining. There’s a lot of freedom that comes with this job too.

What do you wish people — lawmakers or the public — knew about state agencies and their role in government?

At least during my tenure, we really did try to stay within the guardrails of our statutory authority. I think there’s some people down here skeptical that agencies are run amok and expanding their authority beyond what it should be expanded to. That, in my experience, was never the case. I will say that when we did administrative rulemakings, I did try to use all the authority I had, all the way up to the edge. If you give me the authority and you give me a governor that lets me make the policy decisions, then I’m going to write my regulations in a way that uses that full breadth of authority. And by and large, state employees want to do the right thing. There’s not much activism, honestly. They might have personal feelings about how they’re going to vote on this person and that person, but … they’re people just doing their jobs. Another thing is, I think many state employees would like to have more ability to meet with lawmakers on their own, but through all of the different governors that I worked under, who was allowed to go talk to legislators was usually pretty limited. I made it a point to bring people in, both to add color to the conversation, but also for professional development. So I wish lawmakers knew that there are state employees below the director level that would be interested in talking to them, but they’re often not given that opportunity.

What legacy do you hope you leave on the state of Arizona?

In those six years I was the director of DHS, I think we did a lot of really good things, probably the two biggest were the two things that were least noticed. One was the Arnold v. Sarn lawsuit. We worked through with the plaintiffs and did a settlement agreement on the Arnold suit, and committed to a lot of things … We wanted to hold future administrations accountable for the things that we agreed to in the settlement agreement on behavioral health, mental health. I think we were an important part of improving the system for people with a serious mental illness and other kinds of psychiatric disorders during that period. The other thing I think we left that’s also long lasting is back in 2013 we rewrote all of the regulations for assisted living, skilled nursing, adult therapeutic foster homes, childcare facilities, behavioral health group homes, all the licensed category of health care. Prior to our changes in the regulations, the regulations were very one dimensional. It was a checklist, and we rewrote the regs so that they were three dimensional. What we wrote in 2013 is still there. They haven’t done anything with the rules. So here we are, more than 10 years later, and that overhaul of all those regulations, I think, put us in a much better position now.

Brian Mee, AASBO executive director, dies

Brian Mee, executive director of the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, had more than 35

years of experience in the field. Mee died Jan. 17 at Mayo Hospital. He was 66. Mee had been an active member of AASBO for nearly his entire career. He also served one year as president of ASBO International. Part of Brian’s message as ASBO International president was to promote school business officials as not just managers, but as leaders within the educational organization. Mee often touted the importance of leadership and provided insight into what it takes to be a leader. His career included having served as assistant superintendent for business services for Pendergast Elementary School District. AASBO President Francie Wolfe-Baumann praised Mee for his unwavering commitment to the mission of AASBO and that his “genuine care for others shaped the success of countless initiatives, always prioritizing the betterment of school business officials and, ultimately, the students we serve.” She continued: “Beyond his professional accomplishments, Brian will be remembered for his kindness, humor, and ability to connect with everyone he met.” Funeral services are scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Jan. 27, at Christ’s Church of the Valley, 7007 W. Happy Valley Road, Peoria.

Arizona Capitol Times – Jan. 24, 2025

GOP lawmaker takes 2 routes to eliminate voting centers

Republicans lawmakers advanced legislation Jan. 22 aimed at banning the use of voting centers.

With Gov. Katie Hobbs unlikely to sign any measure that would do so, GOP lawmakers are hoping to get approval from voters on the issue.

The House Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections Committee passed both HB2017 and HCR2002. The measures are identical, except the concurrent resolution won’t require the governor’s signature to become law.

Instead, the resolution would go to voters on the 2026 general election ballot if it gets through the Legislature.

“I also did it in the form of an HCR so it can go to the people and the people can choose to vote for this on the ballot,” said Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, the sponsor of the measures.

Both pieces of legislation would require election precincts to have no more than 1,000 registered voters and to prohibit the use of voting centers across the state.

Each measure passed out of committee on party lines. Keshel ran identical legislation last year but her bill didn’t get through the Senate because former Sen. Ken Bennett, who also formerly served as secretary of state, voted against the measure along with Democrats.

The bill becoming law would present some logistical issues for election administrators across the state, according to Jen Marson, the executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties.

“The reason that vote centers became popular is because we didn’t have enough places to be polling places in a traditional sense,” Marson said Jan. 22. “That’s the piece in terms of logistics that this bill is missing. If it’s mandated that we have to go to a precinct model and we literally cannot find enough spaces, what do we do then.”

The use of voting centers, where registered voters can vote at any eligible voting center instead of a locally assigned precinct-based polling location, is a relatively new practice. Maricopa County used precinct-based voting up until the 2020 election cycle.

Almost all counties in the state allow the use of a voting center in some way. Some counties like Gila County use a hybrid model with both precinct voting and vote centers while only three counties exclusively use precinct voting: Apache County, Mohave County and Pinal County.

Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap is supportive of the precinct model, although the county Board of Supervisors oversees elections. He said he believes the voting center model has led to greater disenfranchisement of voters with long lines or technical issues that have occurred in prior elections.

“It certainly is easier to use the voting center model on the elections officials, who have to staff these offices and find poll workers,” Heap said.

More than two million ballots were cast in Maricopa County in the 2024 general election, which would require about 2,000 polling places under Keshel’s measure.

Heap said the 1,000 registered voters per precinct cap that Keshel is proposing could be an issue for a large county like Maricopa. He recommended bumping up the cap to 1,500 registered voters, but said that would still require staffing for about 950 precincts.

“If we limited it to precincts, we’d have an increase in volunteers and an increase in locations. A lot of locations don’t want to necessarily serve as a polling place anymore because they know they might have 10,000 people show up on Election Day at one location,” Heap said.

Some Republicans also view the early voting period as a balancing act between precinct and centralized-location voting, but Keshel’s measure would repeal state law that allows county recorders to establish on-site early voting locations. Voters could still return early ballots by mail or at a dropbox.

That provision is one of the main issues for civil rights advocacy organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

“Arizonans want the ability to return their signed, sealed and voted early ballot, whether that’s by mail or in person at a voting location,” said Katelynn Contreras, a policy strategist for ACLU of Arizona.

The bill is flexible in giving a polling location the ability to serve as an on-site early voting location, but Marson said it would be unusual for a place like a school or church to be open the same amount of time that designated voting centers are open and noted precinct locations have only been used on Election Day.

“Right now, I don’t believe the statutes contemplate that scenario at all and also, you have to have all those places willing to be open for the days of early voting and on (Election Day) Tuesday,” Marson said.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said he sees the measure as a way to increase voter access for in-person voters on Election Day for many rural voters who may have to drive farther to participate rather than going to their local polling place at a school or church in their community.

He said he views voting centers as an unconstitutional poll tax because some voters might not be able to access a voting location by walking.

“If I have to pay to have a car, put gas in that car, in order to go drive to go vote, I have to pay in order to vote. If I have to pay bus fare in order to ride to a polling location, then I have to pay in order to vote,” Kolodin said.

Upcoming Event

Month: January 2025