by Matthew Holloway | Mar 4, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that prevailing wage ordinances enacted by the cities of Phoenix and Tucson violate state law, ruling in favor of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, represented by the Goldwater Institute in a lawsuit challenging those laws.
The decision holds that local ordinances requiring contractors on certain public works projects to pay “prevailing wages” are prohibited under a 1984 state statute, A.R.S. § 34-321(B), that forbids cities from imposing prevailing wage requirements. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the ordinances conflict with state law.
Goldwater’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, the Arizona Builders Alliance, and the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, who argued that the ordinances exceeded cities’ authority under Arizona statute.
In a statement, Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, said, “The real winners in today’s ruling are Arizona taxpayers—as the court itself made clear.”
Sandefur then quoted the court’s language, writing: “The Cities’ interpretation would grant the Cities broad power. With that power, the Cities could dictate how much any employer pays any employee anytime an employer contracts or subcontracts with the Cities. Put differently, the Cities by ordinance could dictate pay whenever an employee works under a public contract, regardless of the contract’s value or the nature of the work performed.”
He added, “That, of course, would cost taxpayers more—reducing their freedom of choice and their ability to invest in their own futures—all for the benefit of politicians and politically well-connected lobbyists.”
In a post to X, he wrote, “The decision’s an important victory for taxpayers throughout the state, who’d otherwise be forced to pay inflated prices for public works projects even though a state law approved by voters abolished ‘prevailing wages’ over 40 yrs ago.”
Prevailing wage laws, distinct from minimum wage laws, require employers on public contracts to pay workers based on wage rates calculated by formula, often higher than standard minimum wages. The 1984 state law expressly prohibits cities from requiring public works contracts to include prevailing wage provisions.
In the case before the appellate court, Phoenix and Tucson had passed ordinances applying prevailing wage rates to city contracts exceeding defined monetary thresholds, $4 million for Phoenix and $2 million in Tucson, and set wage requirements by reference to federal Davis-Bacon Act wage schedules.
Attorneys for the cities had argued that subsequent voter-approved minimum wage measures, including the 2006 voter-approved Minimum Wage Act and subsequent amendments, allowed local governments to regulate minimum wages and thus could support prevailing wage requirements. The court rejected that interpretation, finding that the statutory authority for cities to regulate minimum wage does not extend to prevailing wage mandates.
In its ruling, the appellate panel wrote that prevailing wage provisions do not qualify as “minimum wages” under the relevant Arizona statutes, noting that prevailing wage requirements apply only to a subset of workers on specific public contracts, whereas minimum wage laws apply generally to all employees once employed.
“Section 34-321(B) prohibits political subdivisions from requiring contractors or subcontractors to pay the prevailing rate of wages on public works contracts,” the court wrote. The panel further held that Phoenix’s and Tucson’s ordinances “conflict with § 34-321(B) and are therefore invalid.”
The court concluded that the 1984 prohibition on prevailing wage requirements remains in effect and was not repealed by later minimum wage laws, determining that the newer statutes and the prevailing wage prohibition can coexist without conflict.
“The Local Permission Provision authorizes regulation of minimum wages,” the court wrote, referring to § 23-364(I). “Prevailing wages are not minimum wages.”
Prevailing wage ordinances have been the subject of multiple legal challenges in Arizona. In 2024, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge similarly ruled against prevailing wage ordinances in Phoenix and Tucson, finding they violated the same state prohibition.
The appellate decision affects not only Phoenix and Tucson but also any Arizona city considering similar prevailing wage mandates under state law, consistent with the court’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 34-321(B) on municipal wage-setting authority for public works contracts.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Feb 26, 2026 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
It’s not an accident that the top issue talked about by politicians these days is affordability. Over the last 5 years the cost of pretty much everything has gone through the roof, largely caused by the trillions in reckless spending by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Washington.
Taming inflation must remain our top economic priority, and the good news is that Arizona Republicans are taking meaningful steps to bring costs down. After adopting a 2.5% flat income tax under Governor Doug Ducey in 2022, state lawmakers have fought to slash grocery taxes, residential rental taxes and eliminate regulations that are driving up the cost of energy and housing.
Yet while the Republican controlled legislature is doing everything it can to make sure hardworking taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, municipalities throughout Arizona are passing an avalanche of tax and fee increases that are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Ethan Faverino | Jan 21, 2026 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) has secured a much needed victory for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, as the U.S. House of Representatives approved more than $7 million in federal funding for critical local projects.
The allocation supports enhanced public safety for first responders and vital legal assistance for veterans, fulfilling the congressman’s commitment to prioritize these community needs.
The funding will benefit several key initiatives across cities in the district, including Peoria, Phoenix, Surprise, Glendale, and Arizona State University (ASU).
Funding Breakdown:
- City of Peoria: $2.85 million for Police Helicopter
These funds will enable the purchase of a police helicopter for the City of Peoria’s Public Safety Aviation Unit. The aircraft will provide rapid air support, strengthen public safety infrastructure, and meet growing demands across the West Valley.
- City of Phoenix: $1.9 million for Law Enforcement Simulator Training Equipment
The allocation supports the purchase of a helicopter training simulator for the Phoenix Police Department’s Air Support Unit, expanding training capabilities for flight crews and improving mission readiness in support of community safety.
- City of Surprise: $999,000 for Police Cruisers
The Surprise Police Department will use these funds to acquire 15 new, fully equipped police vehicles, strengthening its ability to prevent crime, enhance community safety, and support day-to-day operations.
- City of Glendale: $1 million for Police Radio Equipment Upgrades
Glendale Police Department officers will receive modern radio technology to replace aging equipment nearing the end of its life. The upgrades will improve field communications, incorporate officer safety features such as location tracking, and reduce malfunction risks.
- ASU West Campus: $500,000 for Veterans Legal Services Hub
ASU’s Veterans Legal Services Hub will expand free legal assistance to veterans, addressing service-connected criminal charges, discharge upgrades, disability claims, and other legal issues for veterans throughout Arizona.
Local leaders praised the congressman’s advocacy in securing these resources:
“I am grateful that the City of Phoenix is poised to receive these federal funds to modernize how we train our police officers. By equipping the Phoenix Police Department with state-of-the-art training technology, we will improve decision making, reduce operational costs, and strengthen public safety. Investing in advanced simulation technology helps our officers train safely, effectively, and with the highest level of preparedness for situations they may encounter on the job. I urge the Senate to pass this critical funding.”- Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego
“Thank you, Congressman Hamadeh, for your efforts to support local law enforcement here in Glendale. The federal appropriation toward new police radios for the Glendale PD will enhance local capabilities and help make our neighborhoods safer.” – Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers
“The passage of this earmark is a win for public safety in Surprise. With this funding, we can modernize our police fleet and better support the officers who protect our community. I thank Congressman Abe Hamadeh for his partnership and support.” – Surprise Mayor Kevin Sartor
“Congressman Hamadeh’s support for Peoria’s Aviation Unit demonstrates a real commitment to our city and the safety of our residents. Securing federal support for local priorities like this makes a tangible difference in our police and fire response capabilities. We’re grateful for Congressman Hamadeh’s continued partnership and advocacy on behalf of Peoria in Washington.” – Peoria Mayor Jason Beck
“On behalf of Arizona State University’s more than 24,000 veterans and military-connected learners, I sincerely thank Rep. Abe Hamadeh for his leadership and support of those who have served our nation. This Veterans Legal Services Hub at ASU’s West Valley campus will remove critical legal barriers, helping veterans and their families resolve issues related to service, housing, and justice so they can focus on successful transitions to civilian life.” – Pat Tillman Veterans Center Executive Director Shawn Banzhaf
Congressman Hamadeh, as a veteran himself, emphasized the importance of supporting those who serve our country and giving them the justice and support they deserve.
“I’m proud to have secured more than $7 million in federal funding for critical projects that will strengthen our local law enforcement agencies, allowing for increased training of our law enforcement professionals and giving them the equipment they need to proudly serve our residents,” stated Hamadeh.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Dec 21, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Phoenix City Council approved several ordinances that will hold the homeless accountable for crimes committed in public parks and spaces.
The council approved ordinances prohibiting certain behaviors most often done by the homeless.
One ordinance puts more restrictions on public parks: no more entering areas closed to the public, drinking liquor, smoking, bathing, or obstructing guests or amenities.
Park rangers or police officers will be allowed to issue a trespass notice lasting one year, and the court may impose community restitution, education, or treatment programs.
Council member Anna Hernandez was the sole “no” vote on the ordinance.
Hernandez said she “needed to take [the council] to church” on the issue. She called the ordinance “shameful, racist, ineffective policy.”
“This is a huge step in aligning our city in Trump’s war on homelessness. We need more beds [and support services], not more criminalization,” said Hernandez.
Parks and Recreation Director Cynthia Aguilar clarified this ordinance was about aligning park code of conduct with city ordinances — not a new effort to criminalize behaviors, or target the homeless specifically.
“The consequences or the penalties that exist already existed prior to this when it comes to the ordinances, but there were clarifications in where that language was placed,” said Aguilar.
The council also approved, unanimously, an ordinance increasing the punishment for remaining on road medians and obstructing traffic. Rather than requiring law enforcement to give a warning for the first violation, law enforcement may issue a civil traffic offense amounting to a class one misdemeanor.
By far the most controversial ordinance passed prohibits the public provision of medical care or treatment, sale or exchange of needles and syringes, and the sale or distribution of harm reduction, or drug usage, kits. First responders, family members, individuals rendering aid during an emergency, and administration or distribution of naloxone are exempt.
Parks and Recreation Director Cynthia Aguilar cited the need for the ordinance to address “safety, potential harm, and [bio]hazard [concerns]” for park users.
Again, Hernandez was the sole “no” vote on the ordinance.
Opponents to the ordinances said they amounted to “criminalization” of poverty and “fascism.” They argued the city had a duty to address the underlying causes of unlawful behaviors by the homeless and provide alternatives, such as more public showers, rather than holding them accountable for their crimes.
Supporters of the ordinances testified to the dangers posed by the transients, especially to the children: bathing publicly in the nude, open-air drug usage, discarding drug paraphernalia, dealing drugs, blocking traffic, and harboring dogs that roam unleashed in public spaces and roadways.
State Senator Lauren Kuby (D-LD8), speaking on behalf of constituents and “mutual aid groups” claimed the behaviors that would be punished were actually constitutionally protected activities. Kuby also argued that it was “basic human behavior” for the homeless to bathe in public.
“Phoenix parks are not just recreational spaces. Under the Constitution, they are traditional public forums — places where people gather, speak, assemble, pray, protest, and exist in public life,” said Kuby.
State Representative Mariana Sandoval (D-LD23) and Senator Analise Ortiz (R-LD24) issued a joint letter criticizing the ordinances as “criminalizing poverty” that would cost taxpayers more without reducing crime or overdoses.
Council member Betty Guardado implied that families in affected neighborhoods should use their “means” to go elsewhere to enjoy public spaces and have their children play.
Council member Jim Waring criticized the opponents of the ordinances as supportive of preserving currently dangerous environments.
“Some of you are clapping. You think you’re on the side of truth and justice. Well, I’ve got some bad news: you’re not. You’re wrecking it for the rest of these people who are also paying taxes. When do we start thinking about them?” asked Waring.
Waring also criticized the hands-off approach to the homeless. He expressed a desire for the homeless to be made to accept services to get off the street and cease drug usage in public.
“We spend a fortune on the homeless — way more than we used to,” said Waring. “You guys think the homeless should just take over the parks and do whatever they want.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Nov 25, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court held a hearing on Monday to decide whether the city of Phoenix can hide certain public records.
The city is being sued by the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, over its hiding of records concerning union negotiations.
In Goldwater v. Phoenix, the Goldwater Institute argued the city of Phoenix has a duty to disclose those records in order to allow the public to have an informed decision, and because they serve as the entity negotiating on behalf of the public.
The organization filed their lawsuit in March of 2023 after the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) declined to provide a draft memoranda of understanding (MOU) for public input at the end of 2022. PLEA had provided its MOU drafts in preceding years.
Per the city’s “Meet and Confer” ordinance, unions must submit MOUs by Dec. 1 in the year before the expiration of an operative agreement so that the public may provide input prior to negotiations between the union and city.
Despite not having a draft MOU available for the public to review, the Phoenix City Council moved forward with a meeting to collect public comment on an unsubmitted draft.
The city then began negotiations in January 2023.
The city of Phoenix refused to give PLEA’s draft MOU to the Goldwater Institute upon request, claiming the records were exempt from public records disclosure because public scrutiny would burden negotiations.
The city claimed they were protected under the state’s public records law exemption allowing the withholding of records should they prove detrimental to a government’s best interest.
“Releasing those types of materials would create a chilling effect on the parties’ willingness to candidly engage with each other and it would hinder the negotiations process,” said the city in their denial message.
The city also expressed concerns that public access to MOUs would politicize union negotiations.
Parker Jackson, Goldwater Institute staff attorney, disagreed that these records were covered by the best interests exemption.
“With few exceptions, public records must be made available to the public,” said Jackson in a press release. “When there’s a need to protect things like personal privacy or public safety, the government must be able to show that specific and significant harm is likely to result from public disclosure. It cannot simply withhold information based on self-interested speculation that some minimal inconvenience ‘might’ occur.”
In January, the Arizona Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Arizona Superior Court so that court could privately review unredacted and redacted versions of the contested MOU documents, and determine whether the documents deserved exemption from public disclosure according to the best interests of the state.
The Arizona Supreme Court is considering two issues in this case:
- Did the Court of Appeals err by not requiring the City, after it invoked the “best interests of the state” exception, to establish a probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure, as Mitchell v. Superior Court requires?
- Did the Court of Appeals err by not applying the Carlson v. Pima County balancing test de novo to independently determine whether the City’s purported interests in nondisclosure outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure?
The public may watch the archived video of Goldwater v. Phoenix here.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 2412345678910...20...»Last »
