K-12 schools in Arizona are currently flush with cash. Between billions in increased state spending from the legislature, COVID cash from the feds, and declining student populations, district school spending is at an all time high. But next week, voters across Arizona will decide the fate of 23 bond requests from schools that total a historic $3.5 billion.
This level of borrowing being sought by local school districts is both unwise and unnecessary, especially given the large amounts of money that have been pumped into the system. State funding has increased so quickly in the last 36 months that the legislature decided to override the constitutional spending limit the last two fiscal years. This is funding over and above the formulaic cap in the constitution that exists to protect taxpayers from runaway and unaccountable spending.
And contrary to what you probably hear from teachers’ unions and their sycophant friends in the media, lawmakers continue to increase school spending with every state budget. With all this new spending, district schools receive more money per student than ever before, and it’s not even close.
Not included in the state spending cap, however, are federal funds. And when schools were shut down during COVID, the federal government poured trillions of dollars into them. Many of the school districts asking their taxpayers to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds next week are still sitting on a pile of unspent COVID cash…
Two Arizona cities are among the top ten in America for military veterans to live, according to a recently released survey.
WalletHub issued its findings for its latest installment of the Best and Worst Places for Veterans to Live, showing Scottsdale and Gilbert among the highest-ranked municipalities in the nation. Scottsdale clocked in at the sixth-ranked city, and Gilbert as the eighth highest.
Chandler (#11), Mesa (#29), Glendale (#37), Tucson (#46), and Phoenix (#58) also appeared on the list of 100 cities.
WalletHub used four dimensions as determining factors for its report: Employment, Economy, Quality of Life, and Health.
Scottsdale received two top-ten marks in the “Economy” and “Quality of Life” dimensions. Gilbert received one top-ten distinction in the “Employment” dimension and an eleventh-ranked notation for “Economy.”
The Veterans Association estimates that there are more than 18 million veterans in the United States. WalletHub releases this annual study “to help military veterans find the best places in which to settle down.”
The City of Scottsdale has an online page dedicated to military events, giving these American heroes easy access to resources and organizations they might need. The foreword for the page states, “No matter when you served or where you served, we honor your service, your sacrifice and your dedication to the United States of America. The people of Scottsdale have a great admiration and the utmost gratitude for the men and women who selflessly served – and serve – this country.”
The Town of Gilbert also has a webpage for military veterans, which is “intended to boost engagement with veterans and their families in our community, provide for recognition, and connect them with needed resources.” Gilbert’s Veterans Advisory Board seeks to “create a supportive Town atmosphere and examine issues affecting the health and well-being of service members, veterans, and their families.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The town of Gilbert is offering up to $800 to residents and up to $3,000 to non-residential customers who swap their lawns for desert landscaping that uses less water.
The financial incentive in the Grass Removal Rebate programs isn’t cash: it’s applied as credit on the recipient’s water bills, and may take up to two bill cycles to appear. A Gilbert spokesperson told AZ Free News that they have a total of $120,000 per year to issue on their rebate programs, and that the allocated funding within that budget may change from year to year based on the popularity of each program.
Those who don’t qualify include those who have removed or are currently removing their lawns, those living in non-single family residential properties, and those with grass areas watered by flood or well water.
The grass must also be healthy and growing at 50 percent density, as well as routinely and permanently irrigated by a landscape irrigation system.
Gilbert residents may now be eligible to receive up to $800 for replacing their lawns with low-water-use landscaping.
The rebate requires an inspection of the resident’s grass landscape. The amount received by residents for the lawn removal also depends on the lawn’s size. On the low end, properties with 200 to 399 square feet of grass are worth $100; on the high end, those with over 1,000 square feet of grass are worth $500.
The additional $300 from the town comes as a reward for planting new shade trees or low water-use plants. Residents with a rebate area with at least 50 percent low-water-use or drought-tolerate plant coverage may receive an additional $200. Residents may also receive up to a $100 rebate for planting two trees from the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List.
As for non-residential customers, like HOAs and businesses, grass removal comes at $1 per square footage of grass, with a $3,000 cap.
Anyone who receives $600 or more in water bill credits must complete a W9 for the Gilbert Water Conservation, as per the Biden administration IRS reporting requirement enacted last year.
Those aren’t the only water conservation financial incentives that Gilbert has offered. The town introduced rebates up to $250 for residential, $400 for non-residential properties to install smart irrigation controllers.
Another municipality, Tucson, opted for involuntary compliance with water conservation. Last month, the city of Tucson prohibited new builds from installing lawns and reduced their water flow; in May, they increased water rates by reclassifying several winter months — billed at a lower rate — into summer months. The city of Phoenix cut water allowance, as well as raised its water usage fees.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Gilbert Mayor Brigette Peterson faces two federal lawsuits for alleged free speech violations.
Peterson was served the lawsuits earlier this month, both of which were filed in the Arizona District Court.
One of the lawsuits, Handelsman v. Town of Gilbert, names Ryan Handelsman, Brandon Ryff, and Joanne Terry as the citizens whose First Amendment rights were allegedly violated. The other lawsuit names one of the plaintiffs only, Ryff v. Town of Gilbert.
In the initial complaint filed in Handelsman v. Town of Gilbert, the citizens allege that Peterson and town officials retaliated against them for their criticism. The citizens handed out and held up approximately 100 signs at the town’s Sept. 20 council meeting last year. Peterson ordered police to remove a sign held by one of the plaintiffs, Terry. Following that interaction, another plaintiff, Handelsman, advised the mayor during public comments that no statute, code, or law prohibited silent display of a sign. Fellow plaintiff Ryff then issued critical comments of the mayor during the public comments.
Following those events, the three plaintiffs decided to hold their signs up again. Peterson had police remove the three plaintiffs from the meeting room.
“There was no disruption caused by Plaintiffs by silently hold[ing] their signs,” read the lawsuit. “It was the Mayor who created an actual disruption along with a constitutional violation, overreacting to something she could have simply ignored and was prohibited from squelching by the United States Constitution.”
After that incident, a citizen filed an ethics complaint against the mayor. The complaint alleged that Peterson violated policy provisions ensuring the impartial, fair, and respectful treatment of all citizens, as well as ensuring the loyalty to Gilbert citizens over personal considerations.
The final ethics report defended the mayor’s actions. It determined that Peterson was right in her actions in order to uphold decorum.
In response, the three plaintiffs alleged that the ethics investigation wrongly neglected to interview them; they alleged that the total defense provided by the final ethics report amounted to retaliation. In remarks to the media, Peterson accused the three plaintiffs of harassment and bullying. At least one of the plaintiffs, Ryff, alleged that these false public accusations by the mayor caused his business to suffer.
The three plaintiffs compared the mayor’s response to their sign-holding with her response during a November town council meeting last year, in which a disgruntled citizen forced the council into emergency recess and continued to disrupt even after the recess with her continued shouting.
There have been at least nine ethics complaints against Peterson since she became mayor in 2021. Eight of the nine were cleared; Peterson was found to have violated open records law as a result of one of the complaints. Concerning five of those complaints, outside investigation concluded that Peterson hadn’t violated the ethics code but did “exercise poor judgment” in some instances.
Ryff and Handelsman were behind several of the other past complaints. The pair filed complaints about the mayor’s communication and conduct concerning an apartment project in Morrison Ranch.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Last Wednesday, the town of Gilbert apologized for creating a document ranking residents based on their support or opposition of a road widening project.
Maricopa County island resident Rich Robertson presented the document to the Gilbert Town Council during last week’s meeting item discussing the project. The document listed the affected homeowners, their parcel, their address, the landowners’ stance on the project, and a “vocal level” of 1-4. A rating of “1” indicated the resident was among the most vocal in opposition, while a rating of “4” indicated that the resident was reasonable.
“The town of Gilbert has created, effectively, an enemies list,” said Robertson. “Why are we as residents — who are trying to exercise our rights — being ranked by your staff on how compliant we are with you? This is, I suspect, not how the council really wants its residents to be treated. I think it’s outrageous.”
The city issued an apology statement last Wednesday from Public Works Director Jessica Marlow.
Marlow apologized for using the “vocal level” category, and said that the intent wasn’t to label anyone. She explained that the intent was to prepare city leaders for meetings with affected homeowners last October. Marlow admitted that the document should’ve been named differently, in hindsight.
“It was meant to help staff better understand how to address concerns ahead of the meetings,” wrote Marlow.
Awareness of the issue was made possible due to three freshman council members who placed the item on last week’s agenda: Jim Torgeson, Chuck Bongiovanni, and Bobbi Buchli. The trio and Mayor Brigette Peterson vocalized their dismay over the document. The mayor noted that she wasn’t aware of the document before the meeting, and apologized.
“I don’t know anything about it, and I am just appalled that something like that might be going around,” stated Peterson. “I do believe that you don’t deserve any of that. I apologize for that.”
Robertson, who was rated a “2,” rejected the city’s claim that the classification wasn’t intended as a list of enemies.
“I think that’s what leads to those kinds of characterizations,” said Robertson. “It certainly wasn’t inadvertent. It was clear that it (the document) was intended to identify the people who were problems and to steel themselves against those people.”
Robertson speculated that he received the “2” ranking due to writing letters frequently to the council.
The project that inspired so much controversy about residents intended to widen Ocotillo Road into a 110-foot right-of-way. The expansion would require several new bridges to span a section of missing roadway. It was included in the FY2023-2032 Capital Improvement Plan, with funds from 2022 General Obligation (Transportation) Bonds.
Watch the discussion of the “vocal level” controversy below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
