Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Arizona agencies request pay hikes for employees

Key Points:
  • State agencies request salary increases for staff in their fiscal year 2027 budget requests
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs’ proposal for a 2% to 3% raise for all state employees was rejected earlier this year
  • Agencies say years of rejected raise requests are leading to high turnover rates and low employee morale

Several state agencies are requesting salary increases for their staff after a proposal for a 2% to 3% raise for all state employees fell through earlier this year.

According to agency budget requests submitted to the Governor’s Office for fiscal year 2027 — which starts July 1, 2026 — several state entities are requesting employee salary increases ranging anywhere from 4% to 10%. 

All of the agencies asking for salary increases cited high turnover rates and low employee morale, with some requests noting that employees are actively seeking employment elsewhere or working two jobs to meet basic needs. Smaller agencies, like the Board of Dental Examiners and the Arizona Historical Society, are particularly struggling with low salaries. 

“The (Board of Dental Examiners) staff are currently disappointed due to the lack of pay increases, the increasing workload, and reading the news about other state agency salary increases that rely on (the board’s) shared 15% to the general fund,” the board’s request states. “While staff members continue to work overtime, when available, this has not alleviated the issues. They are tired and frustrated by the lack of resources.”

Gov. Katie Hobbs proposed enacting a 2% to 3% raise for all state employees in her executive budget proposal, but the raise was not included in the budget she ultimately signed for fiscal year 2026. Hobbs told the Arizona Capitol Times that it is too early to speak of specific budget plans for next year, but state employee pay is something she is always looking to increase.

“This is a huge challenge and one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Hobbs said. “My message to state employees is that I appreciate the work you do on behalf of Arizonans every day. I know it is not easy, and we’re doing what we can to make sure that you’re compensated for what you do.”

Many of the agencies asking for salary increases for their employees are fee-funded and would use the revenue from those fees to fund pay bumps, avoiding any costs to taxpayers. Requests for a 5% increase at the Board of Dental Examiners and 10% increases at the Board of Pharmacy and the Board of Chiropractic Examiners would not dip into the state’s general fund, which is supported by income and sales taxes. 

However, excess revenue generated by the boards goes into the general fund, meaning any increase funded by fees would take money away from the revenue lawmakers and the governor use to fund new initiatives or cover costs at other agencies. And Hobbs is already warning that there will not be much general fund money to go around next year with federal spending cuts and the dwindling of Covid recovery funds. 

That isn’t stopping agencies from asking for pay raises financed by the state’s general fund though. 

The Arizona Historical Society’s request for a 10% increase would cost around $310,500 annually from the general fund. But AHS says raises are necessary because it estimates one quarter of its staff will resign without them.

“Many of the agency’s staff have been forced into secondary employment to meet their basic needs,” AHS’s request states.

Other, larger agencies are also asking for general fund money to support staff salary increases. The Department of Juvenile Corrections and the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry are asking for 4% raises, while the Attorney General’s Office and the Administrative Office of the Courts are asking for 5% and 10% raises respectively.

ADCRR submitted the largest general fund request for salary increases at $26 million. The Administrative Office of the Courts, which encompasses the Superior Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, asked for one of the largest pay bumps at a cost of $5.8 million to the general fund. 

The AOC said in its budget request that many of its staff are currently underpaid.

“Our latest review found that Judicial Branch employees are paid 19% below the comparable court job market, making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain a skilled workforce,” the AOC request noted. 

Almost all of the agencies asking for salary increases attribute low employee pay to a combination of inflation, the Covid pandemic and other economic factors. But some agencies noted that their requests for pay increases have been ignored for years, allowing the cost of living to outpace salaries. 

The last statewide salary increase of 10% was enacted in fiscal year 2023. State troopers and firefighters saw a 5% and 10% pay raise respectively in the current fiscal year. 

The requests for state employee salary increases also come after lawmakers discussed raising their own pay during the 2025 session. Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, championed a measure that would have asked voters to approve raising lawmaker salaries from $24,000 to $48,000, while other lawmakers also offered proposals for increasing their pay. 

But most proposals for pay increases for lawmakers have also gone ignored for years, making it unlikely that either elected officials or state employees can expect a raise anytime soon. 

Lawmakers want to raise their pay from $24,000, increase per diem

The Arizona House of Representatives may soon vote on two different proposals that would increase the salaries of state legislators.

The House Appropriations Committee passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1003 on March 31, which would adjust the annual $24,000 salary of state lawmakers to inflation or deflation. That resolution now joins Senate Bill 1061, a measure which would increase per diem payments for lawmakers, in a twin effort to raise the annual pay package for those in the Legislature.

Voters last approved to increase the salary for lawmakers to $24,000 in 1998. If SCR1003 makes it through the Legislature and onto the ballot, voters will get the chance to nearly double those salaries, with the proposed inflation adjustment equating to just under $47,000 in pay for 2025.

“I do not believe that when the voters approved our current $24,000 salary in 1998 that it was their intention that today, in 1998 dollars, we would be making the equivalent of $11,000 or $12,000,” said Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, the sponsor of the resolution.

Most legislators have supported the measure. It got through the Senate 22-5 and passed the House Appropriations Committee 14-3, with Reps. Stacey Travers, D-Tempe; Justin Olson, R-Mesa; and Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, voting against it.

Travers proposed a similar measure after incorporating part of a bill she ran in previous sessions. That legislation would have raised the pay of lawmakers, but also enacted lifetime term limits to get rid of the workaround of a lawmaker running for office in the other chamber after reaching the current 8-year term limit. Kavanagh, however, said he felt those were two different issues that voters should consider separately.

“Given the budget shortfall, (and) potentially the optics of giving ourselves a pay raise when we’re fighting to claw state priorities, I think could be a little difficult to overcome,” Travers said. “I don’t know if voters think we deserve a pay raise.”

Supporters of a pay increase argue it would make the Legislature more representative of the average Arizonan since the low salary and time commitment of being a lawmaker can potentially hinder candidates interested in office if they have to rely on another job for their income.

Former state Sen. Eva Burch of Mesa resigned in March and cited the low pay as one of the reasons for her departure from the Legislature.

“Many people are not able to make it work at all,” said Rep. Kevin Volk, D-Tucson. “You have the travel, an unpredictable schedule, and we functionally exclude all sorts of normal, everyday Arizonans from being able to serve.”

The Appropriations Committee also passed SB1061, which received a late striker amendment from Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, that would increase daily per diem payments for Maricopa County lawmakers’ travel expenses from the current $35 a day during the first 120 days of a regular session to $200. If approved by the Legislature, SB1061 would not go to the voters but would instead be sent to the governor.

Lawmakers who reside outside the county make more in per diem payments, which is currently just over $200 daily, or 80% of the annual federal per diem rate set by the U.S. General Services Administration. Livingston said he didn’t believe that system was fair, as some lawmakers are making up to three times more combined pay than legislators in Maricopa County.

“I think there’s discrimination happening currently (in) the way members of this body and the Senate are paid,” Livingston said. “This needs to be fixed.”

SB1061 may still see some changes as it goes through the House, and Livingston has stated he is open to using a different percentage of the federal per diem rate and to changing the number of days when the per diem rates would lower.

Currently, after 120 days of regular session, per diem payments decrease to 50% of the federal rate for lawmakers who reside outside of Maricopa County and to $10 for their Maricopa County colleagues.

The bill passed 10-7 in the House Appropriations Committee. Gress and Olson voted against the measure as did all Democrats on the committee aside from Volk.

“I am in favor of recognizing all of the costs whether they’re direct costs like rental or household-related costs, but also the costs of time,” Volk said.

Rep. Mariana Sandoval, D-Goodyear, also represents parts of Pinal, Pima and Yuma counties in the large Legislative District 23. She said the per diem disparity greatly affects her, but that she had constitutional concerns over the method of increasing lawmaker pay through per diem payments.

Livingston said he also supported raising the salaries for state-elected officials, including the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction and mine inspector. He is open to adding pay increases to those offices in his bill.

“It’s embarrassing how low we pay them to work year-round,” Livingston said.

Gov. Katie Hobbs’ annual salary in 2023 was $95,000, which ranked third-lowest in the country according to the Council of State Governments.

Lawmakers push ballot measure to raise their $24,000 salaries

Following the recent resignation of a state senator over pay, the Senate is considering a measure to increase state lawmaker’s salaries to levels in line with economic inflation.

Sen. Eva Burch, D-Mesa, resigned from the Legislature on March 14, and, in a March 5 news release, she cited legislator pay as a major contributing factor in her decision to leave the Senate.

“I know that I am not the first, nor will I be the last, good person to find themself a casualty of legislative pay,” Burch wrote. “I hope that the future will see Arizona lawmakers earning a living wage so that our constituents can be represented by working class citizens who understand the pressures of raising a family and struggling to make ends meet here in Arizona.”

It’s been nearly 30 years since voters last gave lawmakers a pay increase. In 1998, voters approved setting their salaries to $24,000. Adjusted for inflation, that $24,000 would be roughly $46,000 in 2025.

The measure passed out of committee with bipartisan and unanimous support. Sen. Brian Fernandez, D-Yuma, said the current salary is intended for a part-time, citizen Legislature, but lawmakers work many more hours than a part-time position both in and out of session.

“The real problem is who can run,” Fernandez said. “There are a lot of people who can’t do this … We don’t have a real citizen Legislature. We have a citizen Legislature that skews to a certain type of citizen.”

“I think it’s fair and reasonable, but we are not the ones doing this,” Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said during a Feb. 25 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing for the resolution.

The Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers is supposed to meet biennially to recommend salaries for legislators, but Kavanagh said Arizona’s last three governors — Hobbs, Doug Ducey and Jan Brewer — haven’t appointed anyone to the commission. That means no recommendations for salary increases have been offered in recent years.

Former Democratic state Rep. Laura Terech told the Arizona Capitol Times that the legislative salary was one of the hardest parts about the job. Terech resigned from the Legislature after the 2024 session and was the most recent Democrat to resign from either chamber before Burch.

“I worked three jobs,” Terech said. “I worked for a nonprofit. I substitute taught on Friday, so it’s really difficult to make a living [as a lawmaker].”

One organization is opposing the measure. Dianne Post, the legislative liaison for the Arizona National Organization for Women, said lawmakers haven’t earned a raise among her organization’s members because of an abysmal history.

“People don’t trust them and therefore are not interested in paying them much more,” Post said in a written statement to the Arizona Capitol Times.

Post also noted that lawmakers receive compensation in per diem payments that are supposed to cover travel and living expenses associated with their duties.

Lawmakers residing within Maricopa County receive $35 per day for the first 120 days of regular and special sessions, including weekends, and $10 for any following days. Legislators who reside outside of Maricopa County make about $250 per day. Although the rate is determined by the U.S. General Services Administration. Members who live outside of Maricopa County make 50% of per diem payments during the first 120 days of session after the 120th day.

Lawmakers have previously attempted to increase their pay and the salaries of other elected officials in recent years. Fernandez sponsored a bill in 2024 that would have increased the salaries of elected officials including the governor, treasurer, attorney general and superintendent of public instruction to the six-figures range for each position.

Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Tempe, also introduced a resolution in 2024 that would have asked voters if lawmakers should have lifetime term limits. That resolution also proposed increasing legislative salaries to $35,000 annually and would be adjusted every two years based on changes in the consumer price index.

Another Democrat has proposed this year to set legislative salaries to be equal to the annual salary of a county supervisor. HB2347, sponsored by Rep. Chris Mathis, D-Tucson, didn’t get any committee hearings this year and that measure could only take effect with the passage of a ballot referral, but it would be a considerable pay increase for lawmakers.

Kevin DeMenna, the senior adviser at DeMenna Public Affairs, has been one of the most vocal advocates of increasing legislative pay. DeMenna has previously said it is “silly” that lawmakers are making $24,000 a year in the 21st century and that salary keeps qualified individuals from running for office.

“Is it really a citizen Legislature when almost all the citizens could never hold the office because of the economics of it?” Kavanagh said.

As a comparison, Maricopa County supervisors earned $76,000 in 2024 and will make $96,000 in 2025. Their salaries are determined by the Legislature.

The Senate is close to voting on SCR1003, which would adjust legislative salaries for inflation from the calendar year that the salary was approved. Senators gave preliminary approval to the measure on March 10, but it hasn’t yet received a vote on the Senate floor.

If the measure gets through the Senate and the House, voters would ultimately make the final decision on whether lawmakers deserve the increase on the 2026 general election ballot.

GOP lawmaker wants to cap university president salaries

The head of the Senate Education Committee thinks the salaries of the presidents of state’s the three universities is “obscenely high.”

So Sen. David Farnsworth is proposing to cap their pay at $500,000 a year – far lower than any of them are now making.

His SB1453 also has a provision to prevent the Board of Regents from getting around that limit.

David Farnsworth

The legislation by the Mesa Republican would limit bonuses and benefits to no more than 15% of their salary. And those add-ons could be paid “only for performance that both exceeds the president’s assigned duties and directly benefits the institution’s students, staff or faculty.”

But the idea is getting a chilly reception from Gov. Katie Hobbs even though her $90,000 a year salary is just a fraction of what the university presidents get, and despite the fact she is responsible for a state general fund budget that is approaching $18 billion.

“I support cutting out expenses wherever we can, wherever possible,” she said Tuesday. But the governor said she wants to be sure the state is getting “the best of the best.”

“And I don’t think the Legislature should be in the business of kneecapping our universities in being able to do that,” Hobbs said.

At the heart of what Farnsworth is targeting is what the regents are paying.

Topping the list is Michael Crow of Arizona State University. He has a base annual salary of $892,532.

On top of that he gets $70,000 a year as a housing allowance, $10,000 for an automobile allowance and contributions to his retirement program equal to 21% of his base salary.

Then there is the possibility of $245,000 in additional compensation for meeting certain goals, at least one of which is measured by whether ASU sports consistently rank in the top three in the Big 12 conference.

University of Arizona President Suresh Garimella got a deal for a base salary of $810,000. There is no housing allowance as the school has a residence for its president, though he gets the $10,000 for a vehicle and retirement benefits equal to 18% of his base salary.

And Garimella is eligible for another $225,000 for meeting goals including bringing the university budget under control – at one point under former President Robert Robbins it was $177 million in the red – and establishing the university as a dominant force in revenue-generating sports and within the Big 12 conference.

Jose Luis Cruz Rivera, president of Northern Arizona University, has a base salary of $712,925 along with retirement contributions and allowance for housing and a car. And he can get another $190,000 for meeting goals.

Farnsworth acknowledged that he has “a skewed perspective” on people making that much because of how he grew up.

“I was raised poor,” he said.

“Then I got married young and my children grew up poor by today’s standards,” said Farnsworth. “And so when I look at these salaries in general I think they’re obscenely high.”

Hobbs did not dispute that her salary equals 10% or less than what any of the university presidents are paid. There also is no housing allowance nor a governor’s mansion, though she is driven around by her state-funded security detail.

But Hobbs said this isn’t a question of pure numbers. She said the only way to measure whether the salaries of the university presidents are too high is by results.

“Arizona is home to cutting-edge, world-class universities who are engaged in significant research that is keeping us on the cutting edge of medicine, on technology, on advanced manufacturing, on solving our state’s and our world’s climate crisis,” she said. But the governor sidestepped a question of whether those successes are the result of who is the president of each institution versus deans and professors who are actually involved in that work.

Farnsworth sniffed at the suggestion that paying higher salaries results in better-qualified candidates.

“I’ve heard that argument,” he said. “It doesn’t impress me because, quite frankly, I have not been impressed with the job the university presidents have been doing.”

He cited as one example the “big money problems” at UA.

But Farnsworth said his views about excessive salaries is not limited to the university presidents. Farnsworth said they also apply to those running public agencies.

“”I think if somebody wants a big salary they ought to be working in free market, not in government,” he said.

Ditto, Farnsworth said, of organizations that bill themselves as non-profit entities.

“When I come across one of them, I always ask, ‘OK, how much does your CEO make,’ ” he said.

“I kind of have a standard if you’re making a large salary you’re probably more interested in the money than helping people,” said Farnsworth. 

 

 

Legislators evaluate new school finance transparency tool 

State lawmakers are considering whether the state should continue funding its recently launched school finance transparency portal. This portal launched in mid-February and serves as a...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Report: teacher recruitment and retention crisis continues

Arizona’s teacher recruitment and retention crisis stretched into a seventh year, according to the most recent survey data from the Arizona School Personnel Administrators Association. The...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

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