During a city council meeting this week, Mayor John Giles and the Mesa City Council voted to approve across-the-board increases in the city’s utility rates and fees covering solid waste removal, electricity, gas, water, and wastewater. Over two-dozen Mesa citizens spoke during the meeting, which stretched over two-hours. Mesa, lacking a primary property tax, derives much of its funding from utility rates and fees.
The city is facing increases in electric rates of up to 39% for Winter Tier 2 usage charges for residents and a $2.75 per month service charge increase according to the council report. Non-residential users will face increases from 2-6 percent. Solid waste residential barrel rates will increase 5.5%, with commercial roll-off rates jumping 6.5%. Gas rates are increasing 6-15% for residences and from 9-25% for non-residential users. Water rates are increasing 4-9% for residents, 5.5% for non-residential, 8.5% for commercial users, and 19.5% for large commercial or industrial users. Finally wastewater service and usage components charges will increase by 7.5% for residents and 8.5% for non-residential.
City staffers told The Mesa Tribune that the typical residential bill for water, wastewater, and solid waste will see an increase of about $5.60, from the current average of $100.21 to $105.81
As reported by the Tribune, Giles answered criticism at a meeting in late November telling the frustrated residents, “This proposed water-rate increase of less than 5% in Mesa is dramatically less than you see in every other community,” said Giles, zeroing in on the water utility increase.
“Cities around the Valley are increasing water 25%, talking about increasing wastewater charges 95%. We’re not doing anything remotely like that in the City of Mesa.“
“So if you’re upset about the increasing price of water, I’m with you. But if you want to vent those feelings, probably every other city council in the state would be a more appropriate place to do that because the increases are less than what you’re seeing in other cities.”
Kevin Medema, a Mesa resident who led the organization of a petition opposing the utility increases reportedly signed by 2,000 people, stressed, “We have citizens that are hurting financially. The city shoots for that 20% reserve (in the utility accounts). Well, you know a lot of residents won’t have that in themselves. So, please consider voting ‘no.’’’
Medema suggested that residents have offered to help the city find ways to reduce spending.
During the November 18th meeting, one Mesa resident, Lynda Patrick-Hayes poignantly called upon the council to “entertain the idea of cutting the utility rates and encourage the city manager to eliminate government waste. The City of Mesa has no revenue problems. It has a spending problem.”
Citing the city’s reliance on utility charges and sales tax due to lacking a property tax, Giles told the citizens, “There’s not an apples-to-apples comparison because the City of Mesa has a different model. We’re going to use utilities to help subsidize city services.”
Multiple attempts to reinstate a primary property tax, eliminated in 1945, have failed over the years.
“Now if you don’t like that model…the answer is not to come to the City of Mesa and say, ‘We don’t want you to raise utilities because that’s denying the reality of math.’”
Responding to calls to reduce city spending, Giles told the gathered objectors, “What your proposal is, you’re saying, ‘I want to dramatically cut spending on public safety in the City of Mesa.’ That’s what you’re asking us to do.”
Republican State Representative Barbara Parker spoke on behalf of her constituents in the area and told the council, “They call me when they lose their homes. They call the state when they can’t afford their insurance. And on behalf of them, I am telling you they are hurting and even one dollar makes a huge difference.”
Parker castigated the mayor and council for suggesting the city cut public safety spending, “The fact that we use the threat of fear and emotion that we are going to cut police and fire is so disingenuous and inappropriate. And to all the gentlemen and women in uniform tonight: I am one of you and I have trained many of the firefighters, and I want you to know we have your backs. And we need to elect people who will fund you first and then find funding for everything else. We are never going to cut funding to police and fire. That is always a tactic. It’s disingenuous, it is inappropriate, it lacks accountability, it is intellectually dishonest, and they are not pawns and you deserve better. Don’t let them use you as a pawn police and fire. It’s inappropriate to have a bond and then immediately after that election to suddenly have a tax increase or a rate payers increase.”
She concluded, “One of the things I was able to communicate to the legislature as a member of the Appropriations Committee is that: EVERY. SINGLE. DOLLAR. IS. SACRED. Every single penny is sacred. And when I’ve asked the citizens would they rather have one more penny in their pocket than have it go to waste or redundancies or excesses. Absolutely they say yes. I hope you’ll have the courage to do the right thing tonight. I can tell you on behalf of the state: we were able to cut budget, balance our budget, give money back to the taxpayers and fund every single program. And if the state of Arizona can do it, Mesa can do it better.”
The rate increases were passed by the city council unanimously with Giles stating, “I know all of that is not appreciated by this crowd to the extent that we’d like it to be, but it’s the facts. For those reasons I am compelled by math and the reality of the situation to support this increase.”
Republicans in the Arizona Legislature scored another legal victory with the nation’s high court granting cert on a case they had intervened in earlier this year.
On November 22, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear FCC v. Consumers’ Research in its current term. The case will be consolidated with SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research. This case involves a question of the nondelegation doctrine, which, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell, is “the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities.”
Great news! The Arizona Legislature joined the states’ amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review this case. @AZHouseGOP@AZSenateGOP
The decision from the U.S. Supreme Court represents a significant victory for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, who had joined an amicus brief from state attorneys general from around the country to urge the justices to hear arguments in this case.
On its X account, Consumers’ Research reacted to the order, writing, “American citizens and consumers alike deserve basic accountability in government and in the marketplace. Americans currently are forced to pay a tax with every phone bill, set by unelected bureaucrats, at the recommendation by the same private corporation that receives the revenue. This is absurd and we believe SCOTUS will agree as the 5th circuit did.”
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on our lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Consumers' Research v. FCC is headed to the Supreme Court.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who was instrumental in the Arizona Legislature joining the efforts to support Consumers’ Research, told AZ Free News that, “These carriers are unlawfully taxing the public to the tune of billions of dollars. Congress should instead determine what taxes our citizens are to pay and by how much, not unelected Washington bureaucrats.”
The brief that the Arizona Legislature signed onto was joined by 15 other states, led by the West Virginia attorney general. The other states were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
In their brief, the attorneys general argued that “the states – and our country – need guidance on the nondelegation doctrine,” that “those who mean to scare the court away from these issues are wrong,” that “preserving Congress’s legislative power protects the states’ interests,” and that “this court should evaluate this statute.”
They wrote, “Every year, the Federal Communications Commission extracts billions from American consumers based on a vague statute that says telecommunications providers ‘should make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the perseveration and advancement of universal service.’ The only limits on this multi-billion-dollar fee are vague notions like ‘quality’ service. And the Commission – an independent agency already shielded from accountability in its own right – doesn’t even set these rates itself. Instead, a private company picks a number that the Commission rubberstamps later.”
The attorneys general added, “Make no mistake: Amici States recognize the goal of securing universal telecommunications service is laudable. Congress can and should find a way to provide these services for everyone. But it’s a ‘fundamental principle that, no matter how laudable its purposes, the actions of our government are always subject to the limitations of the Constitution.’ Congress needs to be the one to act here, not a private band of unaccountable industry participants. The Court should grant the Petition to say so.”
The Court’s decision to hear arguments in this matter follows an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in July, which found that “this misbegotten tax violates Article I, Section I of the Constitution.” The appeals court stated, “The Q1 2022 USF Tax is not only difficult to square with the Supreme Court’s public nondelegation precedents. It was also formulated by private entities. That raises independent but equally serious questions about its compatibility with Article 1, Section 1, which requires ‘[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.’ We (1) explain that the scope of FCC’s delegation to private entities may violate the Legislative Vesting Clause by allowing private entities to exercise government power. Then we (2) explain that even if FCC’s delegation could be constitutionally justified, FCC may have violated the Legislative Vesting Clause by delegating government power to private entities without express congressional authorization.”
According to SCOTUSblog, this case will likely be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the spring of 2025. The justices’ opinion will be rendered in June or July at the conclusion of their term.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Two Utah residents have been indicted for defrauding Arizona’s school choice program.
The alleged culprits, Johnny Lee Bowers and Ashley Meredith Hewitt (aka “Ashley Hopkins”), were indicted for the theft of about $110,000 from December 2022 through this May, Attorney General Mayes announced on Monday.
Bowers and Hewitt allegedly used the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program funds for their personal living expenses in Colorado. The pair are now believed to be living in Utah, per Mayes’ office.
Bowers and Hewitt allegedly submitted applications to the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) for seven real and 43 fictitious children using false, forged, or fraudulent documents such as birth certificates, utility bills, and lease agreements. Bowers and Hewitt applied under their own names as well as under fake identities, called “ghost parents.”
The pair put the false identities under fictitious “families” with the surnames Gil, Cole, Diaz, and Dobbs, as well as another “family” going by Hewitt’s surname.
Bowers and Hewitt were indicted on counts of the class two felonies of conspiracy (one count) and fraudulent schemes and artifices $100,000 or more (one count), as well as the class four felony of forgery (58 counts).
In a statement on the indictments, Arizona Superintendent Tom Horne said that the fraud was found out thanks to the auditor he hired to oversee the ESA Program, a position he noted was not previously established under his predecessor, Kathy Hoffman. Horne clarified that it was his office who referred the findings of fraud to Mayes’ team.
“As a former Arizona Attorney General, I am determined as Superintendent to eliminate any fraud within the ESA program. Upon taking office, I hired an auditor who had been in the Auditor General’s office for 15 years, and who is now in charge of the ESA program as well as an investigator. Those two positions had not existed under my predecessor,” said Horne. “I am pleased that prosecutions are following in the cases we sent to The Attorney General’s office.”
Earlier this year, five others were indicted in a similar $600,000 “ghost children” scheme to defraud the ESA program. 17 children were used in those applications — five of whom were discovered to be fake — associated with false birth certificates and false disability documents to obtain more funding. Those indicted were Dolores Sweet, Dorrian Jones, Jennifer Lopez, Jadakah Johnson, and Raymond Johnson, Jr.
Sweet allegedly approved applications for three fictitious children she claimed as her own while working as an ESA account specialist from 2019 to 2023. Both Johnsons are Sweet’s real adult children.
Lopez allegedly approved applications for two fictitious children she also claimed as her own while working as an ESA program lead specialist from 2019 to 2023.
Jones worked with the ADE as an administrative services officer.
As with these most recent indictments, the five indicted earlier this year were hired by Horne’s predecessor and later caught by Horne’s auditor.
In an October meeting, Horne announced that ESA reimbursements have proved to be “an overwhelming problem” for ADE due to low staffing, resulting in long wait times and a growing backlog.
Prior to last year, the ESA program paid through ClassWallet. The legislature approved tuition payments through reimbursement last year, something Horne says is the root of the problem.
Horne explained that efforts to combat the backlog have allowed for fraud to enter, citing an attempt to streamline reimbursements earlier this year by automatically reimbursing purchases at $75 or less leading to an instance of seven account holders discovered to have bought $13,000 of Amazon gift cards.
The ESA program has over 83,000 students enrolled as of mid-November.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona Senator David Farnsworth is drawing attention to findings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The findings revealed that Arizona is home to five of the deadliest intersections in the western United States—all of which are in Maricopa County. The study, conducted over an 18-year period, found that across the western U.S. from 2004-2022 more than 35,000 people were killed in car accidents related to these intersections. This amounts to approximately 2,000 accident fatalities per year, according to data analyzed by Sam Aguiar Injury Lawyers.
Within the study’s timeframe, the situation has distinctly worsened with fatal crashes related to these intersections doubling.
Farnsworth said, “Far too many of Arizona’s roadways are filled with potholes, bumps, cracks, loose gravel, or other unstable surfaces. Some may not have adequate lighting, others may not have appropriate signage or traffic signals.”
This morning, an AZDPS sergeant was conducting a commercial vehicle inspection on SR 347 in Maricopa when his unoccupied patrol truck (with emergency & hazard lights activated) was struck by a passing motorist. Our sergeant and the commercial vehicle driver were unharmed. pic.twitter.com/WYisZmfSvw
— Dept. of Public Safety (@Arizona_DPS) July 3, 2024
He added, “These treacherous conditions are contributing to a hazardous commute for drivers. We must make improvements to create a safer environment for drivers traveling through notoriously deadly intersections within our state. Whether that’s adding traffic lights, lanes, or improving road surfaces, it is paramount we don’t ignore our deteriorating transportation system. It remains critical that we take a deep dive into funding reforms in the coming months to secure the necessary resources to improve our roads, highways, and freeways. Arizonans’ lives and livelihoods depend on it.”
Two of the intersections are located along SR-347, the main route to Maricopa, AZ.
Maricopa Mayor Nancy Smith also weighed in on the findings, saying, “The safety of our residents is our top priority, and many of our state highways require urgent upgrades. A prime example is SR 347, which links the City of Maricopa to the Greater Phoenix area. This critical route is in dire need of expansion and safety enhancements. I am grateful that Senator Farnsworth is dedicated to exploring innovative solutions to address this vital issue.”
According to the report, the five intersections in Maricopa County are Broadway Road and SR-85 (Oglesby Rd), 59th Ave and Indian School Rd, Hazen Rd and SR-85 (Oglesby Rd), Maricopa Rd and SR-347 (N John Wayne Pkwy), and Riggs Rd and SR-347 (N John Wayne Pkwy).
The Arizona Legislature’s two Second Amendment hawks achieved a major victory for their constituents’ freedoms.
Earlier this month, the Sedona City Council announced plans to reconstruct a local ordinance that had caught the ire of two Republican state legislators this fall, Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss. The news came after the lawmakers had taken their dispute to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office over the City of Sedona’s Ordinance 12.30.090, which prohibits individuals from carrying firearms on “any trail or open space area.”
Nguyen had previously written, “The City of Sedona has had ample time to address these concerns and has chosen not to act. We are left with no choice but to seek the Attorney General’s involvement to ensure the rule of law is followed.”
The letter to Mayes followed Representative Nguyen’s prior communication to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and city councilmembers over the ordinance. Nguyen had highlighted that the Ordinance’s prohibition “on carrying firearms is not consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108,” thus making it “invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds what state law authorizes. He pointed out that “cities may…enact ordinances ‘[l]imiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves’ when certain statutory conditions are met.”
In a comment to another local publication, a City of Sedona spokeswoman said, “In the new ordinance, a person will be able to carry the firearm in the park but can’t discharge it unless in self-defense.” This ordinance is expected to be updated on December 10, at the next city council meeting.
Bliss responded to the announcement from the municipality, saying, “A message to cities and towns…don’t violate the rights of the people!”
A message to cities and towns . . . don't violate the rights of the people! https://t.co/vmDZU8ojAq
Nguyen and Bliss, two seatmates in a Yavapai County legislative district, have quickly proven themselves to be some of the top Second Amendment advocates in the state. Over the past two years, both lawmakers have won the “Legislator of the Year” award from the Arizona Citizens Defense League for their protection of Second Amendment rights. They will look to continue their defense of Arizonans’ constitutional rights to keep and bear arms in the upcoming legislative session in yet another divided state government.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Democrat President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter, despite a very public vow not to, was met with condemnation from Arizona leaders in both parties. Two Arizona Republican congressmen and one congressman-elect were joined by a Democratic Representative in offering a stern rebuke of Biden’s blatant reversal and the clear preferential treatment given to his son.
In a statement released late on Sunday, Biden forwarded the claim that his son’s prosecution for violating federal gun laws and violations of the tax code were selective and that his son was “unfairly prosecuted” and “treated differently.”
He wrote:
“Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.
No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.
For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”
Most controversially, the “Full and Unconditional Pardon” issued for the younger Biden is broad and sweeping. It covers “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” Notably, this period covers time when President Biden was still Vice President under the Obama administration, as well as Hunter’s appointment and tenure on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma according to Reuters. This would handily cover events and serious allegations of corruption probed by the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives in the past two years. It would also cover business dealings in China that have been heavily scrutinized as influence peddling and featured the cryptic mention in exposed emails of Hunter securing “10 held by H for the big guy,” as reported by the New York Post.
Appearing to refer to the implication of President Biden in the scandals, Republican Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-09) wrote in a post to X, “Proxy Pardon,” seeming to suggest Biden is de facto pardoning himself or his brother James Biden.
Congressman-elect Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ-08) wrote, “Joe Biden is leaving his presidency even more disgraced. A two-tiered justice system has no place in America. No more lies. No more special treatment. It’s time to restore law and order.”
Joe Biden is leaving his presidency even more disgraced. A two-tiered justice system has no place in America.
Democratic Congressman Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) reposted the Associated Press coverage of the pardon and wrote, “I respect President Biden, but I think he got this one wrong. This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers,” adding a bipartisan character to the Congressional blowback from the pardon of Hunter Biden.
I respect President Biden, but I think he got this one wrong.
This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. https://t.co/P31d4ILL1P
