Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona

People diagnosed with ALS, ESRD left with gaps in coverage

Key Points:
  • People diagnosed with ALS or ESRD are put on immediate Medicare coverage, but gaps persist
  • A senator and a representative filed legislation to address gaps, but both efforts have stalled
  • Opponents say the legislation would raise premiums, supporters say extra cost is manageable

For people diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) before age 65, Medicare eligibility can arrive early but full financial protection often does not. 

That’s what Kevin Gallagher found when he was diagnosed with Primary Lateral Sclerosis, which is a related neurodegenerative disease. Later, the diagnosis became ALS. 

He lives in Arizona with his wife, Wendy, and they’ve been married for 36 years. She is a nurse practitioner and he trained as a paramedic and EMS instructor in Flagstaff. After he retired, Gallagher was going to teach pilots at a flight school co-owned with a friend. He had been a pilot since the 1970s. But when he got the diagnosis, he wasn’t able to fly anymore. 

When someone receives a diagnosis for ALS or end-stage renal disease, which is the last stage of chronic kidney disease, they are automatically and immediately enrolled in Medicare and supplemental insurance (commonly known as Medigap), regardless of age. However, supplemental insurance coverage that accounts for the remaining 20% of what Medicare plans don’t cover is left up to the states, Gallagher said.  

Eventually, Gallagher learned he wouldn’t be able to buy a Medigap policy because he was under 65, he said. Medicare Advantage was technically available, but it amounts to private insurance and pre-approvals, referrals and a network of doctors, Gallagher said. 

“You get a little bitter for those things and that was kind of a blow to have to get Advantage,” he said. Another surprise that came with Advantage was finding out that policies can be limited by county and zip code. “Since I lived in Maricopa and Maricopa resides in Pinal County, which has always been a mystery to me … there was not a single policy that would cover my ALS doctor and my ALS clinic.”

An ALS clinic completes several appointments in one visit every three months. A team of providers meets with the person and makes a care plan, Gallagher said.

The Arizona couple faced a choice between keeping their house, which was next door to Wendy’s elderly parents, or moving to Phoenix for better coverage.

Gallagher said he did look into neurologists available under Advantage, but none of them specialized in motor neuron or neuromuscular diseases, and one even referred him back to the doctor he had been seeing, saying he was the best in the state.

At that point, the Gallaghers were able to sell their home and rent a house in Phoenix, though it was a difficult decision, he said. Even after finding an Advantage policy, it still had a high copay because his doctor was out of their network and he put off a few treatments that were not covered, such as Botox injections that help control spasticity in his jaw to help him speak.

Once he turned 65, his insurance journey improved. Gallagher got a ventilator for nighttime use, and a respiratory therapist came to his house to show him how to use it. In contrast, Gallagher knows another person with ALS who was prescribed a ventilator, but it took a year of refusals and reapplications just to receive it. When it was granted, it was dropped off on the porch with no respiratory therapist to help, Gallagher said.

It’s a situation many people face if they’re diagnosed younger than 65, resulting in life changes for the whole family, especially when it comes to mobility, Gallagher said. 

“When you see someone that you know from your past and then see him in this situation, it’s a wake up call,” Rep. Selina Bliss, R-Prescott, said.

House Bill 2433 would require insurers to offer Medicare supplement insurance policies to people with ALS or End-Stage Renal Disease, even if they’re not 65 yet. The bill would also prohibit insurers from charging higher premium rates based on age. 

Bliss said her bill wouldn’t cost the state money. 

According to a fiscal note, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimated it could increase Insurance Premium Tax collections by $91,300 annually due to 1,055 individuals enrolling in Medigap plans, and potentially raising premiums. 

The bill does not affect the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System or state employee health insurance. The Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions did not provide an estimate for fiscal impact, according to the document. 

However, there’s about 600 people with end-stage renal disease and about 170 people with ALS in Arizona, according to the organization. 

“For every new diagnosis coming in, one leaves on the other side because the life expectancy is so short,” Bliss said. 

The bill unanimously passed the House Health and Human Services Committee in February, where Bliss serves as the chair. But the bill wasn’t heard in the House Rules Committee, the last stop before the House floor. 

Sen. TJ Shope, R-Coolidge, filed Senate Bill 1191, which is similar to Bliss’ bill, but it did not get heard in the Senate Finance Committee. He said he didn’t have a bill available to file a strike-everything amendment.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said he’s very sympathetic to the issue, but there are many other insurance bills coming through his committee for other causes. He said he did his best to play Solomon and make the best decision. 

“If we add this one, and then we add this one, and we have this … everybody pays a higher premium,” he said. “Where’s the delicate balance because we have a group of vulnerable people and then we have just the affordability of health care for everyone.”

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce declined to comment.

Mike Huckins, senior vice president of public affairs and IT operations for the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, said they generally oppose health insurance and health care mandates that can increase the cost for all employers, employees and other covered individuals. 

“While this bill is well meaning, coverage, pricing and benefits provided by private health insurance should be negotiated between employers and insurance providers,” he wrote in an email. 

Marc Osborn, who spoke on behalf of Blue Cross Blue Shield Arizona during the February committee meeting, said premiums would increase about 30%, or $70 per member per month, based on an actuarial report they conducted. 

“The reason why the cost shift is so significant is that population, the ALS population and the dialysis population will always use their full Medicare supplemental benefits, and so therefore, those costs have to be shifted onto every other post 65 (member),” he said. “While it’s a very needy and deserving population, I appreciate all that, but the cost shifts to some of the most cost-sensitive seniors.”

While 19 other states have passed similar laws, Osborn said their rates are higher and they have different market conditions. 

But Bliss said those claims are false. In a February 2026 actuarial report by Berkeley Research Group, premiums would only increase by about $2 per month. If the bill passed, about 770 Arizonans with ALS or end-stage renal disease would be enrolled for Medigap, Bliss said.

A recent study published in the American Journal of Managed Care showed that the costs were only about three times more expensive for people with ALS and six times more expensive for people with end-stage renal disease. 

Nineteen states already passed similar laws and 12 of those states “boast higher Medigap enrollment percentages than the national average,” while seven have “below average market-wide Medigap enrollment, suggesting the laws are not negatively impacting a state’s Medigap market,” according to a letter written by ALS Arizona. 

Arizona Attorney General mounts legal challenge against Kalshi over illegal gambling

Key Points:
  • Arizona Attorney General charges KalshiEX LLC with multiple state gaming law violations
  • Kalshi allegedly allowed people in Arizona to wager on various events, including sports and politics
  • The company faces a maximum fine of $10,000 for each election-related violation

Attorney General Kris Mayes is turning the tables on a company that takes online bets on future events, charging it with multiple violations of state gaming laws.

In a new legal filings, the attorney general cites 20 different instances where she says that KalshiEX LLC has allowed people in Arizona to wager on various events.

Some of these bets were on sports, both professional and college. And that, according to Mayes, runs afoul of statutes that specifically limit such wagering to companies and tribes that have agreement with the state.

A few of the charges relate to sports-connected events.

For example, a criminal complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court says Kalshi took a wager on whether Elon Musk would attend the Super Bowl. The legal papers say that is prohibited by general statutes that bar placing events on “any unknown or contingent future event or occurrence whatsoever.”

And then there are several instances where Mayes said Kalshi was offering to let people wager on some future political events, like whether J.D. Vance would be elected president in 2028. She said there are specific statutes, beyond the general prohibition against gambling, that make it a crime to place bets on elections.

The lawsuit comes less than a week after Kalshi filed its own complaint in federal court.

The company wants U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi to rule that every one of the wagers it takes is not gambling but instead something more akin to trading futures on commodities. And that, its lawyers contend, place its activities out of reach of state authorities.

Mayes, by filing criminal charges, has signaled she is not buying it.

Importantly, the attorney general was already busy gathering evidence against Kalshi even before the company went to federal court: The 20 crimes that the company is accused of violating are based on wagers actually made a month ago or more by undercover state agents.

The litigation has been a long time in coming.

Kalshi was founded nearly a decade ago by Tarek Mansour and Lunana Lopes Lara, both MIT graduates. It is designed to allow people to place wagers on things that have not yet happened. More recently, it has expanded its options to include political and election-related events.

But the company, seeking to avoid a host of laws against gambling, got itself approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And, as it describes its activities, it allows people to purchase event “contracts,” putting down money on whether a specific future event will happen.

Not true, Mayes said.

“Kalshi may brand itself as a ‘prediction market,”’ she said in a prepared statement.

“But what it’s actually doing is running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law,” she said. “No company gets to decide for itself which laws to follow.”

And what she has to back that up are those contracts — or wagers, have you — on future events that were made by her undercover agents.

One, for example, was who would win the Feb. 14 women’s basketball game between the University of Arizona and Arizona State University.

The wagering fluctuated all day, with 91% of those betting as of 2 p.m. that day that the UA would win. That meant anyone placing a bet at that hour would wager 91 cents in hopes of winning a dollar; ASU backers got a contract for 9 cents.

As it turned out, ASU won 75-69 in an event where $176,683 was at stake — $1 of that placed by an undercover investigator — not counting the fixed fee that Kalshi takes. Mayes takes the position that, however Kalshi structures it and whatever it calls it, it was illegal to let anyone bet on it.

The lawsuit does not say on which school’s basketball team Mayes’ investigator placed money.

Other contracts are still pending over events yet to be decided.

One, for example, is whether Congress will enact the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act to require proof of citizenship to vote. So far, according to the Kalshi website, only about 10% of those who have so far put up $2.3 million are willing to bet there will be action on the SAVE Act, as it is better known.

And then Mayes cites the current political bets, ranging from a generic question of which party will control the House of Representatives after the 2026 election — more than 80% currently think it will be the Democrats — to whether the Democratic or Republican candidate for secretary of state will win. For the moment the line on the Kalshi website shows strong wagering on the Democrat — incumbent Adrian Fontes is the only one seeking the party nomination — versus just 15% who think it will be whoever survives the GOP primary between Alexander Kolodin and Gina Swoboda.

All of that, Mayes said, is illegal.

The violations of wagering on elections carry a maximum fine of $10,000. The other incidents can result in $20,000 fines.

Kalshi is hoping to bypass having to deal with any of this by filing the federal court case. There, the company is asking Liburdi to issue a temporary injunction barring the state from taking any action against it.

But federal judges generally avoid such orders when there are state criminal charges pending. And, absent some other order from the federal court, that will force attorneys for Kalshi to appear in Maricopa County Superior Court at a yet-to-be-set date to answer the charges.

The legal spat is not unique to Arizona.

Kalshi has convinced federal judges in several other states to at least temporarily enjoin criminal probes against it. But similar attempts in other federal courts have been rejected.

A $1.1T problem: Why career infrastructure investment is the key to solving our talent crisis

Amber Smith

Every year, Arizona watches billions of dollars slip through the cracks. The problem is a fundamental disconnect between postsecondary education and students’ transition into the workforce. Nationally, that gap costs the U.S. economy an estimated $1.1 trillion in GDP each year, according to Pearson’s Lost in Transition report.

Arizona shares in that loss. Research from Helios Education Foundation and Education Forward Arizona shows that increasing postsecondary attainment by just 20 percent could add $5 billion to our state’s economy.

So what’s the cost of inaction? When roles go unfilled, companies delay expansion, automate prematurely, or relocate. Talent shortages reduce state tax revenue, suppress wage growth, and slow innovation. Instead of reacting to shortages, Arizona can instead anticipate them with a world-class talent alignment system, starting with real-time student interest.

The student problem: Graduating without direction

Across Arizona, students complete Education and Career Action Plan requirements as compliance exercises rather than meaningful career exploration. Many graduates emerge with diplomas but lack an understanding of which careers offer strong prospects or match their interests. This confusion leads the student to make multiple major post-secondary education changes and miss opportunities for high-paying, high-skill careers they never knew existed.

Students remain unaware of educational opportunities within their own communities that align with their career interests. They’re making life-altering decisions without comprehensive information about the pathways available to them.

The employer problem: Talent pipeline disconnect

Employers in key industries cannot find skills-aligned talent despite job availability. Business leaders participate in workforce discussions without real-time insights into what students want to pursue. Companies struggle to communicate career opportunities to students before they make educational decisions.

Arizona’s homegrown talent pool shrinks as students born and raised here graduate without knowing about career opportunities in their own communities. These Arizonans miss out on jobs that remain unfilled, forcing employers to look elsewhere for workers who could have been developed locally.

The policymaker problem: Making decisions in the dark

Policymakers face the impossible task of making workforce development decisions without comprehensive data on student interests or employer needs. Economic development officials make recruitment promises without knowing if local talent pipelines can support growth.

Multiple organizations work in silos, lacking coordination and sometimes duplicating efforts while missing critical gaps. Rural communities face even worse talent shortages with limited access to career exploration resources and localized opportunities.

What students and educators need: Early access and clear pathways

The solution begins with recognizing that career clarity cannot wait until graduation day. Students need early exposure to high-paying, high-skill careers before making postsecondary decisions. They require earlier access to career technical education opportunities with a better understanding of career pathway connections. When students can see the bridge between their interests and real career possibilities, they make more informed decisions that benefit both themselves and the state’s economy.

As Arizona State Senator and Chairman Kevin Payne (LD 27) states, “Arizona students should graduate with a clear pathway to a good-paying job — whether that’s college, skilled trades, technical training, or careers like public safety, which remains one of the top in-demand career fields in our state. When we better align education with real workforce needs, we strengthen our economy, support our employers, and keep opportunity right here in Arizona.”

What policymakers need: Data-driven infrastructure

Effective policy requires accurate information. Policymakers need comprehensive data about student interests to align funding with actual workforce demand while divesting from programs with no demand or interest. They require real-time workforce data collection to inform policy decisions and systems that enable coordination between education, training, and employment sectors.

Targeted investment in career infrastructure generates measurable returns. Health care sector initiatives alone can support nearly 1,000 active jobs monthly, producing tens of millions in economic output and millions in annual tax revenues.

Investment that pays for itself

Arizona must support funding for career exploration infrastructure that connects rather than competes with existing programs. The state needs data collection that reveals where resources need to go to fill career pathway gaps. Policymakers should prioritize solutions that give every Arizona student access to career clarity and pathway information localized to their communities.

Arizona cannot afford to maintain fragmented workforce systems while losing billions in economic opportunity. The economic returns justify the investment, and Arizona’s future competitiveness depends on acting now.

Amber Smith is the CEO of Pipeline Connects.

Shift happens: When Colorado River cuts hit home

Rusty Childress

This is no longer someone else’s problem.

If Arizona loses a significant share of its Colorado River supply, you won’t feel it standing on the shore of Lake Mead. You’ll feel it in your water bill, in the cost of keeping a lawn alive, and eventually in what your home is worth. That’s the shift, from abstract resource crisis to something unmistakably personal.

For years, the conversation has circled around structural deficits, aridification trends, and post-2026 operating guidelines. Eyes glaze over. But when shortage conditions led to Rio Verde Foothills losing its hauled water access, none of that technical language was necessary. Real estate listings stalled. Buyers hesitated. And agents started hearing a question they hadn’t heard before: Does Arizona actually have enough water?

That question travels faster than any policy memo.

It’s not only Arizona’s question, either. Seven states, tribal nations, and Mexico all draw from the same river — a single connected system of reservoirs, turbines, and canals that doesn’t recognize “Upper Basin” or “Lower Basin” as meaningful distinctions. When inflows decline, pressure builds everywhere. Framing the problem as three states against four has produced predictable gridlock. Framing it as seven states tied to one shrinking supply clarifies what’s actually at stake.

When buyers grow uneasy, markets respond. When markets respond, politicians pay attention. Water insecurity isn’t just an environmental concern — it’s an economic signal.

Consider what a serious priority-based reduction would actually look like on the ground in central Arizona. Water rates in higher-use tiers would rise sharply. Outdoor irrigation would become genuinely expensive. Nonfunctional turf would disappear from new developments, and HOA rules demanding lush green aesthetics would become difficult to defend in court and in conversation alike. Subdivision approvals would require proof of actual, deliverable water rather than paper allocations. Agricultural districts would face compensated fallowing, crop shifts, or permanent water transfers. Industrial users, including data centers, would be required to disclose and reduce their consumption.

None of that resembles turning off kitchen sinks. It resembles reshaping growth and lifestyle expectations — which is uncomfortable, but it’s a different kind of problem.

Fairness, though, cannot be an afterthought. If homeowners are fined for overwatering while large agricultural operations continue flood-irrigating low-value crops, resentment builds fast. If builders keep breaking ground while existing neighborhoods are told to conserve, trust erodes. If industrial users receive quiet carve-outs while residents face scrutiny, the politics turn volatile. Scarcity that demands sacrifice from some but not others isn’t just inequitable — it’s combustible.

Rio Verde was not a large story in acre-feet. Perceptually, it was enormous, because it showed how quickly long-held assumptions about water can unravel and how rapidly markets internalize risk when confidence falters.

Backyard pools are more than amenities — they’re part of the lifestyle Arizona has always sold and that families expect to keep: sunlight, open patios, grandkids swimming in January. If scarcity deepens, even those expectations may face new limits or rising costs. Not overnight, but gradually, through pricing signals, restrictions, and shifting cultural norms about what’s reasonable to expect in a desert.

Structural shortages, in the end, require structural responses. Turf removal at meaningful scale saves tens of thousands of acre-feet; agricultural transitions save hundreds of thousands. Slowing new development until supply is demonstrably reliable prevents deficits from compounding. Advanced municipal reuse increases reliability within existing urban systems. None of these are glamorous, but they save real water.

The uncomfortable reality is that people don’t respond to acre-feet. They respond to invoices and aesthetics. When a water bill rises 25 percent, behavior changes. When lawns vanish from new subdivisions, conversations follow. When buyers hesitate because long-term supply feels uncertain, developers take notice.

Change accelerates when cost aligns with scarcity.

As long as water feels cheap and abstract, deadlock holds. When it becomes personal and visible, adjustment follows. The river itself doesn’t negotiate — it reflects supply and demand, and post-2000 flows are measurably lower than the 20th-century assumptions that built the modern Southwest. Seven states depend on one declining inflow, and no single state can stabilize the system alone.

Ignoring reservoir charts is easy. Ignoring mortgage values and monthly bills is not.

The sooner price, growth, and policy align with hydrologic reality, the more orderly the transition can be. The shift is coming either way. The question is whether it shows up gradually in policy — or suddenly in property values.

Rusty Childress is an Arizona native and nature photographer.

Arizona should support local businesses in state contracting

Kimber Lanning

Across Arizona, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Locally owned companies create jobs, serve families and reinvest in the communities where we live and work.

Arizona is home to more than 650,000 small businesses employing over 1 million residents. These businesses represent 99% of all businesses in the state and account for more than 42% of Arizona’s private-sector workforce. Together, these businesses form the foundation of Arizona’s economy.

When it comes to state contracting, local businesses often compete against large out-of-state companies for the same opportunities under rules that are outdated, don’t create a level playing field for local Arizona business owners and can cost Arizona taxpayers more money in the long run. Out-of-state companies often do not provide full health care benefits to all employees, pay lower wages or rely on workforces that are not rooted in the local community. While these companies may initially submit lower bids for state contracts, the broader economic benefits that come from supporting Arizona based businesses such as job creation, tax revenue and reinvestment in local communities are lost. 

Local businesses are far more likely to hire Arizona residents, provide stable employment and reinvest their earnings back into the state’s economy. When Arizona companies win state contracts, those dollars circulate within our communities, supporting other small businesses, strengthening local supply chains, and generating additional state and local tax revenue. 

Modernizing Arizona’s state contracting policies to better recognize the value of local businesses helps ensure that Arizona taxpayer dollars deliver the greatest overall benefit to the state. By creating a fairer and more competitive process, Arizona can support its homegrown businesses, strengthen its workforce, and keep more economic activity within the state.

Companies like Wist Office Products, Goodmans Interior Structures, Gateway Bank, Vertical Pivot, Original Neutral Building Materials and many other locally owned businesses across Arizona have built their success by investing in the communities they serve. When local businesses bid for and win state contracts, more money stays in Arizona supporting jobs, suppliers and local tax revenue. When local businesses grow, the benefits stay local. Arizona-based businesses also reinvest more of their revenue in the communities where they operate. In fact, dollars spent with companies headquartered here stay in Arizona at a rate several times higher than dollars sent to out-of-state corporations. 

According to the National Association of State Procurement Officials, Arizona is one of only two states that currently does not provide reciprocal in-state bidding percentages in state contracting or an in-state preference for locally owned businesses in state contracting. 

That’s why Arizona HB2858 matters. The bill keeps procurement competitive while recognizing the value of companies rooted in Arizona communities. It helps level the playing field for local businesses without sacrificing transparency or fiscal responsibility. For many small business owners in our community, this bill represents a simple and common-sense principle: Arizona should put Arizona businesses first. Arizona taxpayers deserve to know their dollars are supporting Arizona jobs whenever possible.

Putting Arizona first in state contracting simply means recognizing the businesses that are already investing in our workforce, paying taxes here, and helping build the communities we all depend on. For small businesses throughout Arizona, this bill is about fairness and opportunity. Arizona businesses should be given the opportunity to keep state government contracts here at home. Arizona’s economy is strongest when local businesses succeed and when Arizona chooses to invest in its own. 

Kimber Lanning is the founder and CEO of Local First Arizona, a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing Arizona’s economy.  

Va.’s data center boom shows how hard it is for lawmakers to rein in industry

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story is part of a special State Affairs series highlighting energy policy dominating state legislative action this year. See the full list of stories here.

Virginia is illustrating for data center critics in other states how difficult it is to build enough political support to impose restraints on an established industry.

Its northern exurbs outside of Washington, D.C., are home to more than 250 data centers, which handle roughly 70% of global internet traffic, according to the Northern Virginia Regional Commission. That constitutes the world’s highest concentration of data centers.

While the industry touts its record of job creation and economic investment, Sen. Danica Roem and other Democratic lawmakers concerned about the energy, environmental and other ramifications of further spread have drafted legislative proposals to curb the industry’s growth. 

But the chances of substantive legislation passing dimmed due to the industry’s intense opposition, said Chris Miller, president of the Piedmont Environmental Council, a Virginia-based conservation group.

“Essentially, the leadership of the Democratic Party does not want to move forward with meaningful reform,” Miller said

The data center industry in Virginia launched in the late 1990s when Dulles-based internet access pioneer America Online built a facility nearby to support its business. Since then, many state lawmakers and environmental groups say the data center industry has grown rapidly with few, if any, guardrails. 

They say the massive facilities are being built in neighborhoods, put upward pressure on electricity rates, threaten grid reliability and the environment, are loud and unsightly, and receive tax benefits that subsidize the richest companies that have ever existed, including Amazon, Meta and Microsoft.

“Go talk to my constituents who have been on the front line of having to fight for reforms in this industry that promises the Earth, moon, wind and stars,” said Roem, who is at the vanguard of industry pushback. 

“Then when the time comes, you find out we have now put such enormous pressure on our electrical grid that … the [state] Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission has determined that if we continue the path that we’re on, we’re going to overload the grid. They are uniquely responsible for that, more so than any other industry, by magnitudes.”

With the Legislature scheduled to adjourn Saturday, the Senate budget may provide one of the best chances for passage of significant data center legislation. It includes a provision to repeal the sales and use tax exemption for data centers. Such breaks cost the state $1.6 billion in 2026, according to a recent state report. 

But the House budget has no such provision. Democratic House Speaker Don Scott has signaled reluctance to backing a subsidy repeal, which has become a sticking point as budget negotiations enter their final hours.

Roem, whose Prince William County district includes Bull Run, the site of two historic Civil War battles, supports repeal of the sales and use tax exemption for data centers. She finds it galling that the state is providing more than $1 billion to wealthy tech companies. She also said the data center industry has not been a good neighbor, seeking to use its financial might to try to crush any pushback from her constituents. 

At least 36 other states have sales and use tax exemptions for data centers — meaning they hope to attract the tax revenue and jobs associated with the industry. And other Virginia localities are interested in attracting the industry beyond what’s known as Data Center Alley in Northern Virginia. 

Projects have been announced in other Virginia localities, including Chesterfield County, Caroline County, Louisa County, Wythe County, Botetourt County, Wise County and the City of Petersburg, according to Nicole Riley, director of Virginia government affairs for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group. 

“In communities across Virginia and around the country, the data center industry is creating hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs, providing billions of dollars in economic investment, and generating significant local, state, and federal tax revenue that helps fund schools, transportation, public safety, tax relief for residents and small businesses, and other community priorities,” Riley said.

Del. Josh Thomas, a Democrat who represents a district in Prince William County, introduced legislation this year requiring new projects for large energy users — at least 100 megawatts — to assess the effects of noise levels on homes and schools within 500 feet of their property boundary. The bill, which was vetoed last year by former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, was approved by the House and was advancing this week in the Senate. Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger hasn’t said if she supports the measure.

“Virginia has been ground zero for the data center industry,” Thomas said in an interview.

“I’m not sure anyone’s gotten it right, because the industry … wants to move forward in an unregulated fashion and enjoy their time under the sun,” Thomas said. “But it just creates so many problems for the average working man and woman.”

Data centers are specialized buildings that house information technology infrastructure, such as servers, storage and networking gear to process, store and distribute massive amounts of data. They require large amounts of power and water, as much as a city and hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, depending on the size of the facility.

The facilities operate around the clock to support internet operations, including financial transactions, health care applications and artificial intelligence development, which are particularly energy-intensive. 

Thomas said he recommends that state and local officials seeking to court data center sites place them in industrial areas, away from neighborhoods. States need to consider where the electricity to power the facilities will come from, which can include options such as requiring the project to build its own power generation source.

He also said states should put in place policies to protect ratepayers, which could include imposing higher electricity rates for an extended period, known as a large load tariff. 

“You need to think about how you’re going to protect your ratepayers from paying for the capital outlay necessary to get the grid in a position to support the immense amount of energy that data centers need, and water as well,” Thomas said. “I would counsel any state thinking about that to go ahead and put legislation in ahead of time that makes it very clear that the data centers pay their fair share for grid enhancement, power plant completion, and then water resources.”

Thomas introduced legislation to provide more state oversight of siting, but the bill did not advance out of committee.

Miller said the problem is so large that lawmakers are having trouble understanding it and its consequences. He said data centers will require about 70 gigawatts in Virginia by 2045, about three times the current peak demand in the state. That’s also roughly equivalent to the electricity usage of Germany or France. 

“The ability of decision makers and the public to absorb that information is really testing the limits,” Miller said, “because there’s no precedent.”

Read more: 

Lawmakers seek solutions to rising electricity rates

Pro-coal legislation picks up in push to meet growing energy needs

Data center growth threatens state climate goals

Electricity demand spurs states to find a way to meet the moment

When Washington cuts taxes for billionaires, Arizona pays the price

Mitzy Epstein

Funding for education and roads in Arizona is always under threat, and now Republicans in Congress have made revenue problems even worse for states like Arizona by passing the federal budget bill, HR1. Congress gave big unfair tax cuts to big corporations and individuals making millions per year while adding $4.5 trillion to the national debt. At the state level it is also wreaking havoc: a big loss of state revenue. Because Arizona’s state income tax starts with the federal adjusted gross income, this federal welfare for the wealthy flowed through to our state’s general fund, hurting our state’s bottom line.   

Every year the AZ Legislature must make a choice to conform to Congressional tax changes or not, and we almost always do! But this year, it would cause the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. The AZ Legislature is likely not to agree to add all those tax cuts for billionaires to our income tax code this year, just as past Legislatures have chosen to do on some of these exact same corporate tax cuts — due to their high cost and unfair treatment of non-corporate taxpayers.

In November, Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order for the Arizona Department of Revenue to publish tax forms with the Arizona standard deduction to be increased to match the federal deduction. It will give a small tax cut to 90% of Arizona taxpayers who do not itemize their deductions. The forms are published, and tax filing season is underway.  

Current law (ARS 43-107) protects taxpayers from penalties or interest who rely on and file the tax forms as written, even if the Legislature changes tax law due to this conformity issue. Do not fall for the Republican false narrative of tax filing chaos. This is just an excuse to justify their desire to enshrine the federal corporate tax cuts into state law. 

If the state Legislature added all the tax carve-outs from HR1 into our state tax code, we would have to make $438 million in cuts to vital things like education and roads to balance the budget. Nonetheless, Republicans in the Legislature have tried not once, but twice to pass a tax-cut bill this year without planning how to pay for it.  

After accounting for all of the spending needs the state is required to fund, Arizona has a deficit in the ballpark of $1 billion, on a total budget of $18 billion.  We do not have spare change to provide more welfare for the wealthy. Arizona Democrats side with the taxpayers of Arizona, not corporate interests and their failed theory that more tax cuts will “trickle down” to everyone else.  

This essay is not tax advice in any form. It is an explanation to dispel any worries that state Republicans may have caused while crying, “wolf!” when there is no wolf in the tax forms. Republicans in Congress caused the tax problems with giveaways to Wall Street, and Gov. Hobbs took action to help the working people of Main Street.  

Mitzi Epstein is the Senate representative of Arizona’s 12th Legislative District. 

Dale Baich: In defense of death row

Dale Baich has watched 16 men die. 

Over the course of his career as a federal public defender, Baich has parsed through the many legal webs entangling death row inmates and protocol in the years, months, weeks and days leading up to their executions. He has watched people walk from death row, and he has sat in the witness room. 

Now, he draws on his experience with the hope of influencing the dialogue on death row and execution methods, as Arizona continues to grapple with its fraught past with capital punishment. 

Questions and answers have been lightly edited for style and clarity. 

How did you get here? 

When I first started practicing in Cleveland, I had a partner and we had a general practice, and I wasn’t the best businessman. After five years, it was time to try something else, and there was a position open at the state public defender’s office in Ohio with the death penalty unit. 

What expectations did you have about capital defense? How did that change over time? 

It’s very serious and consequential work. And what I learned along the way is that not only do you need to understand the law and how the courts work, but the work is really about the client. To me, I’m representing a client in a case as a lawyer who represents people on death row. My job is not to get rid of the death penalty. My job is to try and convince a court or a clemency board that the death penalty is inappropriate in this case. So, that’s how I’ve approached it. 

One of the frustrating things about the work is the way the system is structured, and as a case goes through the judicial process, people think that more judges are looking at the conviction and sentence to make sure that everything that happened was fair. 

The reality is that as a case goes through the process, courts are limited as to what they can review, what they can decide. There’s a lot of deference by the courts, to what happened at trial. So that part is frustrating, because you may find something new that is significant, that would have made a difference at trial, but the courts say we cannot look at this because there’s a statute or there’s a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and it’s hard to explain that to the client. 

How did you approach your relationship with a client? What does it require? 

Trust is key. What you have to be willing to do is spend time talking with and meeting clients. And I want to be clear that this isn’t something that one person does. There’s a team of people there. There may be two or three lawyers on the case. There are investigators, both fact investigators and mitigation investigators. There are paralegals so, you have this team, and you know, you’re all in working for the client, and someone on the team needs to have that connection. 

It takes some clients a little longer to trust. There are clients who have mental impairments that make it difficult for them to understand and to trust and to share what they’re thinking. Those are challenges, but it’s just really important to be there for the client.

Any clients in particular stick out in your mind when you reflect back? 

I have a client in Ohio that I’ve represented since 1991. In 2000, the state did some DNA testing. They found some biological material, tested it, and hid it from us for eight years. We get the test results. We eventually get into court. We have a hearing, and the judge decides that case was murder, rape and burglary, and the judge said the state’s theory of trial was it was a single assailant, and since the DNA excludes him from the rape, it excludes him from murder, and vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial. 

Eventually, the judge allowed him to be released on bond, so he walked from death row to freedom, and he was living as a free person for two and a half years, did not get in any trouble, went to see his pre-trial service officer when he was supposed to do that. I was in Cleveland, and I got to meet him for lunch at a restaurant and sit across a table. And then, two and a half years after he was released, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that the judge who vacated his conviction did not have jurisdiction and reinstated the conviction, and the next day, he was back on death row. And the reason the judge did not have the jurisdiction is that, under Ohio law, the defendant needs to request the DNA testing. Here, the state did it on its own, and then hid the results from us for eight years. We have the results, yeah, and the court, relying on this jurisdictional technicality, sent him back to death row, where he is today.

What is it like to traverse through changing case law? 

It’s really sort of surreal. Using this case as an example, he went back to death row in 2018. We filed a clemency application in 2022, we are in federal court. The clemency board in Ohio won’t hear the case. The federal court case has been pending for almost three years. And that’s frustrating. It’s frustrating and surreal. And then, being at the end of the line with a client, and trying to litigate issues and getting courts to be interested in those issues, and at the same time trying to prepare the client for what is likely going to happen. There’s a lot of challenges in trying to do that. 

On the flip side, when have you had success? 

My old office had cases where we walked two people off of death row because of evidence that was withheld by the state. So those were celebrations. But it took the system so long for that to happen. It’s frustrating when people say, well, the system worked, the guy got out, or the system worked, the death penalty was vacated. But it takes a long time for that to happen. We have to be patient and we have to be diligent. 

Part of this work is assessing, at the end of the line, how states carry out executions. What have you seen in the way of changes to executions? 

Initially, when we started to litigate issues related to the Arizona protocol, the Department of Corrections basically would say, trust us. And what we learned along the way through discovery, through clients being executed, is that we couldn’t trust the Department of Corrections to follow its own protocol.

That was obviously a concern, but we just kept our foot on the gas. I think along the way what has come out is that Arizona’s process is more transparent now than it was in 2010 when I witnessed the first execution here. The public, through the media, gets to see more of the process. And I think the public is more educated on the process. It’s all about transparency and holding our public officials accountable.

In Arizona, we’ve seen some pushes to alter methods of execution, to add the firing squad or reexamine lethal injection. What should the state consider? 

I think the solution is life without parole. Because the person who committed the crime is going to be removed from society for the rest of their life. They’re going to be in the custody of the Department of Corrections, and the family members of the victim are not going to be re-traumatized for the next 20, 30, 40 years, because what happens is whenever a case moves from one step to another, the press will write about it. The victims’ advocates are required to notify the family members and they relive the trauma they experienced when they lost their loved one. I think that life without parole is a workable solution. It’s sound public policy. 

When you look back on your work, what change do you think you have affected? 

What we try to do is give our clients dignity, humanity and to hold our system accountable. If the state decides that it’s going to take the life of one of its citizens, the client deserves all the protections and resources to hold the state accountable.

What should people look out for as the state moves toward another execution? 

The bottom line is that the death penalty is about politics, the decision of who is targeted for the death penalty is a political decision by the county attorney. The decision to seek an execution warrant is a political decision by the attorney general. One of the frustrations is that people think that the death penalty is all about justice and fairness, but it’s not. It’s all about politics. 

How have you seen the sentiment on executions change over the course of your career? 

When I started doing this work, support for the death penalty was about 80% nationally, and we are at a point now where it dips below 50% if life without parole is offered as an alternative to the death penalty. That’s come about because of education, the reporting on all the exonerations from death row, I think they’re at 200 now. And the litigation over the methods of execution where you know people now know that it’s not a guy just laying on a bed and going to sleep, that it’s really a very violent act going on, and I think, a sense of understanding that people change. 

A client who committed a horrible, horrible act on the worst day of his life is a different person as time goes on. I have seen clients grow. They’ve turned inward, and there’s this strength that they have. Many of them can’t believe that they did what they did. They simply cannot believe it. They’re not denying it. But, because there were drugs or alcohol or they were mentally impaired at the time, now that they’ve been removed from some of those conditions and getting a little bit of treatment, not doing the drugs and alcohol, they’re different people. 

We’re not who we are on the worst day of our life. 

Don’t let biomarker testing law be a missed opportunity for mental health care

Luis Fong

I am what you might call a first responder in mental health — a psychiatric nurse practitioner based in Gilbert, providing care to patients of all ages through a virtual collaborative care model and in-person across Arizona. My goal is simple: I want my patients to get better. I want them to enjoy their lives and enjoy their families.  

But we’re falling short on mental health in our state.  

  • 18% of adults in Arizona have been diagnosed with depression — 9th in the U.S. 
  • Arizona is ranked #50 / 51 in mental health prevalence and access to care.

The traditional “trial-and-error” approach to prescribing mental health medications can result in frustration – as well as wasted time, money, and medication – for clinicians and patients. Less than 40% of patients with depression achieve remission with their first prescribed drug. With each new medication, the chance of remission decreases, while treatment intolerance increases, according to a large study. 

Mental health disorders are complex and challenging to treat, but there is a tool that can help, and Arizona already passed a law to support it. To help treat my patients, I often utilize mental health pharmacogenomic (PGx) panel tests. These biomarker tests require only a simple cheek swab to analyze a patient’s DNA. The results of the test, which only needs to be administered once in a patient’s life, provide genetic insights that help me understand how a patient may metabolize or respond to commonly prescribed psychiatric medications. In my practice, I have seen how this information can allow me to tailor treatment plans, reduce side effects, and avoid the frustrating trial-and-error process that can delay recovery

In 2022, Arizona was one of the first states in the nation to pass legislation (House Bill 2144) requiring Medicaid and commercial insurance plans to cover qualified biomarker tests for a variety of conditions, including mental health. Biomarkers are biological indicators — such as genes, proteins or other molecules — that provide information about a person’s health or response to a treatment.  

House Bill 2144 created a unique opportunity for Arizonans suffering from mental illness by requiring that personalized medicine tools, like mental health PGx panel tests, be made widely available to better treat mental health disorders when they are covered under Medicare coverage determinations. By requiring health insurance carriers to cover this type of biomarker testing, the Arizona Legislature has signaled its intention to improve access to mental health care in the state. Based on AHCCCS’ published medical policy and the experience in my clinical practice, more than two years after the legislation has been in effect, Arizona’s Medicaid Fee for Service Program — AHCCCS and the Medicaid Managed Care health plans that contract with AHCCCS — to provide care to Arizona Medicaid patients are not adequately covering mental health PGx panel tests that clearly should be covered under the law. 

One such example is the GeneSight Psychotropic Test which had its medical billing code listed on AHCCCS’ fee schedule even before the biomarker law went into effect — allowing coverage of the test by the state Medicaid program and managed care programs. After the law went into effect, however, AHCCCS abruptly removed the code without explanation, effectively designating this Medicare-covered, clinically validated, and legally required biomarker test as a non-covered service for Arizona’s Medicaid population. 

Meanwhile, PGx mental health panel testing remains covered by Arizona commercial insurers, creating a disturbing disparity in access for Medicaid patients, who are often among the most vulnerable and most in need of effective mental health care. Adding insult to injury, coverage is already available to our closest neighbors under both Medicaid Fee for Service and commercial health insurance.  

This is troubling for me and for my patients. As mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on Arizona and the United States, we should be doing all that we can to seek out and increase access to proven solutions. We cannot afford to squander opportunities to improve access and treatment for mental health care while so many Arizonans are desperate for relief. I am looking to state agencies and policymakers for leadership to ensure that health insurers are following the law.  I urge Arizonans to contact the Governor’s Office, AHCCCS, or their state legislator to ask them to support broad access to mental health PGx panel tests that meet the biomarker law’s coverage requirements.    

Luis Fong is a board-certified family psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner at Spero Psychiatry and Counseling, providing comprehensive psychiatric care to people throughout Maricopa County.

GOP leaders appeal judge’s ruling on transgender birth certificates

Key Points:
  • Judge rules law requiring surgery for birth certificate change unlawful
  • Ruling requires health department to recognize doctors’ statements
  • The reason: Unamended birth certificates could lead to forced privacy violations, harassment or violence upon transgender individuals 

Republican legislative leaders are making a last-ditch effort to defend and preserve a state law that says only those who undergo a sex-change operation are entitled to an amended birth certificate.

House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen contend that U.S. District Court Judge James Soto erred in concluding that the law amounts to a requirement for transgender individuals to submit to surgery to get a birth certificate that reflects their identified gender.

They say there are legitimate reasons for limiting who can get an altered birth certificate, including “preventing fraud and preserving the stability of the vital-records system.” And now they are asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the 2024 ruling.

But time is running out.

Soto last week rejected a request by the pair to stay enforcement of his ruling while they appeal. And that means his decision becomes official – and transgender individuals who have not undergone sex-change surgery can get amended Arizona birth certificates – on April 30 unless the appellate court intervenes.

The lawsuit involves gender dysphoria, a condition where a person’s gender identity does not match the sex assigned at birth — as stated on an individual’s birth certificate.

An attorney for two children who sued argued that one of the treatments is to align the person’s life with his or her gender identity. And while that could include hormone-replacement therapy and surgery, Rachel Berg said it also starts with things like changing their names, using different pronouns, adopting clothing and grooming habits associated with their peers of the same gender identity.

Soto agreed.

“Not every transgender person needs surgery to complete a gender transition,” he wrote. “Starting social transitioning and other recommended therapy may eliminate the need for any potential surgical intervention.”

That, the judge said, is what has been happening in the case of the children who sued.

But Soto said that, absent a birth certificate that reflects their gender – something the state has refused to issue absent surgery – transgender individuals cannot continue their social transition. And, acknowledging the challengers’ arguments, the judge said that presents problems when they are required to present a birth certificate.

“Their outward physical appearance will not fit with the gender marker on their birth certificate,” the judge said of their concerns. “Thus, if these documents are presented to others, they would, of course, be forced to involuntarily out themselves as transgender.”

Soto ruled the health department can accept – and would have to recognize – statements by doctors that an individual is undergoing transition, whether or not that person chooses to go through or wants surgery.

It is that decision that is being appealed not only by the state health department but separately by Montenegro and Petersen, who were permitted by Soto to defend the law.

Attorney Justin Smith, who represents the pair, is telling the appellate court that the surgery requirement makes sense.

“The new sex listed on an amended birth certificate could be objectively verified,” he said on their behalf. “The new sex generally could be verified through a physical examination by a medical professional.”

That, he said, is not possible if the person has not gone through a surgical sex change.

And there’s something else.

Smith said if someone has undergone sex-change surgery and received a new birth certificate, as is currently allowed, it is “vanishingly unlikely” that a second amendment would be necessary.

“The gender identity of at least some transgender individuals, however, can change over time,” he told the appellate court, saying there is evidence that some individuals “detransition” later in life. “In those cases, the state may need to amend an individual’s birth certificate multiple times, creating confusion, cost, and administrative burdens.”

Smith acknowledged that there is another option, one that preserves the original birth certificate as a sealed record of the sex of a child at birth, but still provides transgender individuals with one that matches their identity. But he dismissed that as unworkable.

“This approach would invite errors, confusion, and administrative burdens,” Smith said. Anyway, he told the appellate court, the cost-benefit analysis of doing that is totally within the purview of state lawmakers.

Ultimately, he said, Soto’s decision apparently rests on the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. But Smith said that is flawed.

“The statute does not prevent any person from refusing unwanted medical treatment,” he told the appellate court. “Transgender individuals in Arizona remain free to decline sex change operations.”

But all this still runs up against Soto’s reasoning about why people may want an amended birth certificate — a document needed for various purposes, including passports — yet may not want to undergo surgery.

“For non-transgender individuals – the vast majority of whom have an accurate birth certificate – they are not presented with the unlawful choice of being stripped of their bodily autonomy or face discrimination, harassment, and potential violence,” Soto wrote.

And he said there are studies to support the contention of transgender challengers that those who have to present birth certificates that do not match their identity, such as in school registration, are subject to being harassed, discriminated against or assaulted.

Permitting reform is a hot topic. Here’s why it’s right for homeowners.

Glenn Farley

It’s only March and temperatures in Arizona already have topped 90 degrees. If you’re hoping your HVAC system holds up, you’re not alone. Replacing it would be costly. 

It also could be time-consuming, especially in some parts of the state.

Arizona does not have a statewide standard for building codes and regulations. Rather, it relies on 106 building-regulating and permit-issuing jurisdictions that all have their own rules and fees. If you thought the federal tax code was confusing, try deciphering the rules for repairing your roof. In about half of our cities and towns, you probably don’t need a permit to complete vital projects like this one, but in the other half you probably do. 

These permitting requirements slow down simple home upgrades, but that’s not all. They also impede permits for new homebuilding projects since there are only a finite number of government inspectors to examine projects. Delays from an overburdened system fuel higher prices for all homes and make it harder to resolve our state’s housing shortfall. 

To determine how our complicated permitting system affects homeowners, the Common Sense Institute Arizona reviewed 2.8 million building permit record summaries across 29 jurisdictions. We determined permitting rules add 23 days, on average, to residential project timelines. 

Because processes and rules are not standardized, headaches are especially severe for some residents. The permitted residential improvement projects reviewed by CSI took about 73 days to finish, on average, but project times varied from less than 40 days in the fastest jurisdictions to 107 days — more than three months — in the slowest.

What do these delays mean in practice?

They meant HVAC-related projects could take up to 200 days to complete and roof replacements could take 275 days. Even replacing a water heater could take more than 100 days in some jurisdictions. (Cold showers, even in 90 degree heat, are rarely welcome.) The smaller the jurisdiction, the more likely a homeowner is to experience a delay.

Permitting is essential. It ensures our homes are safe and secure. But our research shows state policymakers could make simple changes that would reduce permitting burdens without endangering health and safety. These changes also would not erode local employment or reduce local revenues. 

Senate Bill 1241 is one example. This bill would allow third party inspections for certain single trade residential projects like replacing a roof or HVAC system. It would not impact rules for major homebuilding projects, or expansions of current dwellings; it would simply make it faster and less costly for existing homeowners to make minor, but necessary and time-sensitive, changes and fixes. States from Colorado and Utah to Texas and Florida have similar laws on the books. 

These private inspectors would follow the same standards and guidelines as city officials, and everyone involved would be required to meet the local codes and building regulations. This would simply free up city inspectors to focus on the largest projects with the greatest potential for life and safety impacts, while speeding things up for homeowners and smaller projects.

Phoenix also has implemented similar reforms. In 2011, the city adopted a pilot program that allowed self-certification of permit applications on certain qualifying projects. This change cut affected approval times by four to six months. Since then, that idea has spread to seven other cities – without consequences for life and safety, and as far as we can tell, without costing local jobs or revenues.

Homeowners who need a new HVAC system, roof, or water heater would not be the only ones to benefit from changes to single trade residential project permitting. Reforms like this would free public inspectors and regulators to more quickly examine major homebuilding projects — and reducing those wait times would lower the costs of building new homes and accelerate that pipeline. Given the scale of such projects, it makes more sense to prioritize them, too.

Arizonans are working more hours than ever to afford a mortgage. Historically, a household needed to work about 45 hours a month to afford the average house payment. Today, they must work 64 hours. Put another way, a household must earn nearly $96,000 a year to afford the average home.

On its own, easing permitting for single trade residential projects will not solve the state’s housing affordability crisis. But it would be a move in the right direction.

Glenn Farley is Common Sense Institute Arizona’s Director of Policy and Research. A native Arizonan, he has a master’s degree in economics from Arizona State University’s WP Carey College of Business. 

Arizona classrooms see just .52 cents of every dollar spent on education

Key Points:
  • Only 52.1 cents of every education dollar reaches the classroom
  • Arizona’s instructional spending is the lowest in two decades
  • Arizona’s per-student spending is $4,503 less than the national average

The percentage of education dollars spent in Arizona classrooms has slipped once again.

New figures from the Auditor General’s Office show that just 52.1 cents of every dollar spent during the last school year was used for instruction. That mainly includes the salaries and benefits of teachers, aides, substitutes as well as general instruction supplies, field trips and athletics.

It is the lowest rate since the report’s inception following last year’s rate of 52.6 cents per dollar.

Significantly, the new figure comes amid a Republican push to require, via ballot initiative and voter approval, that schools increase the rate to 60 cents. 

If approved, that mandate wouldn’t be instant. Institutions will be given some time to get there, with districts directed to increase the rate of spending by at least one nickel each year. Failure to meet the higher rate would amount to a loss of certain state funds. 

Chuck Essigs, lobbyist for the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, said the numbers are not surprising given fiscal realities of not just fixed education costs but also a declining enrollment.

All of that is complicated further, Essigs said, by the fact that Arizona spends far less than the national average on education.

That’s not just his assessment. It’s backed by reports from the Education Data Initiative and Forbes.

A recent report puts per student spending in Arizona at $14,629 compared to the significantly higher national average of $19,132.

The new report shows actual instructional spending is about $30 higher per student than it was a year before, but plant services are up by $59 per student.

That includes utilities. And Essigs said electric companies in Arizona are not giving schools a break.

The situation, however, could be changing.

Enrollment in public schools, which peaked at nearly 932,000 in 2008, is now down by 92,000, resulting in a commensurate reduction in state aid which is based on attendance. That is forcing districts to close schools, which should reduce the need to heat and cool those buildings.

But Essigs said there are other factors — things that just cost a certain amount, regardless of how much schools are being given.

“Things like food service,” he said. “It doesn’t cost less to feed kids in Arizona.”

Ditto transportation costs.

Essigs said there are things that schools can do to deal with declining enrollment, whether it is closing buildings or by simply having one less third grade class.

“You still need to have buses,” he said.

“So instead of having 50 kids on that bus, you have 40 kids on that bus,” Essigs said. “It still uses the same amount of fuel, you still have to have the bus drivers.”

The new report also points out that, for whatever reason, while the overall number of students in public schools is declining, the number of students receiving special education services has increased, particularly for autism. And that can cause an increase in the category of instructional support — something that doesn’t count toward that 60% goal for instruction — because it includes counselors, audiologists, speech pathologists, nurses and social workers.

And such support costs increased by $33 per student last year.

Still, there were other costs that also increased, costs that some lawmakers say can be reduced.

Administration, on average, took up 10.4 cents of every dollar of state spending. That also is up by $33 per student.

The report also says that there were 59 students for every administrator. That’s down from 60 the prior year — and 62 the year before that.

All that is acknowledged in the report which says that looking at pure percentages of each dollar spent paints only a partial picture.

“For example, a district’s overall spending might increase, but its percentage spent on an operational area may decrease if the dollars per student spent on that area stay the same or even increase.”

Rep. Matt Gress, who is pushing the legislation to require schools to get to that 60% figure for instruction, said he isn’t buying the argument that there isn’t enough money to reach that goal.

He said the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University has a report which looks at education spending in Arizona between 2014 and 2024.

“How is it that we increase K-12 spending by 57%, certainly higher than the rate of inflation, and yet instructional spending went down,” asked the Phoenix Republican. “It doesn’t make any sense to me.”

And Gress has his own views on the growth of the cost of support services — 2.7% in the past year versus 0.4% for instruction.

“Schools have spent money on everything but the classroom,” he said.

Nor is Gress buying arguments that transportation costs, up 2.7% year over year, really can’t be controlled. He instead looks at data not found in the auditor general’s report which says total ridership is down 44%.

“You lost nearly half your ridership,” Gress said.

“And you’re telling me that there were enough bus routes that were just fixed that not only did we maintain them, we actually increased the spending on them?” he continued. “I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around that concept.”

Essigs said all that ignores what the new report says about an increasing number of special needs students. He said these are the ones who ride on the smaller buses, which can transport only a few students at a time, but still require drivers and fuel.

That still leaves the data, including in the report, that finds Arizona near the bottom of all states in what it provides in aid.

“I’m not going to dispute the per-pupil costs,” Gress said. But he said that, in some ways, that’s irrelevant to academic performance.

“Mississippi was able to make not only gains but read third grade reading, compared to some states like Massachusetts and California, while spending drastically less per pupil,” Gress said.

Still, that Education Data Initiative report shows Mississippi spending more than Arizona on a per student basis.

Gress remains unconvinced, saying that the scores in standardized tests given to third and eighth graders in Arizona have fallen to a point that “suggests, to me, that monies are not being prioritized correctly,” going back to his central argument about putting more into the classroom.

What the report also shows is that the average teacher in Arizona earns $65,613, up less than 1% from the prior year. That also compares with $48,472 in 2017.

But it also notes that some of the difference in this average can come from districts where more experienced — and better paid — teachers have left the profession and were replaced by more recent graduates.

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.