by admin | Apr 12, 2018 | News and Updates
In a historic vote, the Board for the Maricopa County Community College District voted to end “meet and confer” process at their meeting in February. Meet and Confer is a form of collective bargaining by which the district’s faculty association has input into faculty benefits such salary schedules, code of ethics, and workload.
The decision was opposed by the faculty association and allies in organized labor and resulted in a frivolous lawsuit claiming damages in excess of $850,000. Lest anyone confuse the faculty board’s motivation with benevolent concern with ensuring the more than 1,400 full-time faculty members of the district get a fair shake – it is important to note that each of the four executive members are claiming $150,000 worth of personal damages for each of them. The other $250,000 are claimed on behalf of the association which pays the board to negotiate on behalf of its members. That’s a lot of upside for association board members. It is less clear how the rest of the 1,404 faculty members benefit.
Although the faculty association isn’t an officially recognized union, their actions leave hardly any room for distinction. When the district board was discussing the policy change as a way to streamline faculty policy-making and save valuable county resources – the association immediately ginned up opposition by spreading fears of the worst-case scenarios. Which was a convenient ploy to boost association membership – and dues.
A bureaucratic and “labor-intensive” process like meet and confer wastes time, money and resources – all of which could be directed into better compensation for faculty members who deserve it. Many communities and political subdivisions have eliminated meet and confer, and the alternative has proved to be far superior.
Individual faculty members communicate their individual concerns, needs, and desires to their management team. Under this more tailored approach of employer-employee negotiations, compensation is based upon the merit and accomplishments of individual faculty members, not from the collective bargaining of a few well-compensated representatives who must negotiate for the lowest common denominator.
At the end of the day the board members are the elected representatives of the people and all college policy decisions are their responsibility. They must balance the use of taxpayer dollars with the optimization of educational outcomes. Eliminating meet and confer is a proven, common-sense policy decision that will better serve students, faculty, and taxpayers alike.
by admin | Mar 27, 2018 | News and Updates
What is worse than your elected legislators voting for a tax increase? Your elected legislators voting to allow an unelected bureaucrat to raise your taxes.
SB 1146 and HB 2166 would do just that. Both bills would grant the Director of Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) the authority to charge any Highway Safety Fee rate they desire as well as set the initial percentage rate of the base retail value of a vehicle that will be used to assess the car owner’s VLT.
As it relates to the Highway Safety Fee, the only ostensible constraint in the proposed legislation is the requirement that the Highway Safety Fee funds 110 percent of the Department of Public Safety’s highway patrol’s fiscal budget, minus any monies left in the fund that exceed 10 percent of the prior year’s fees. In other words, the fee must directly and fully fund DPS. However, this is not how the government appropriation process works or should work.
There is a good reason we don’t let the head government bureaucrat decide how much money they need to operate and then tell the tax payers to fork over the money. Instead, our system has representatives of the taxpayer determine priorities for funding and evaluate what the taxpayer base can ultimately afford and require the government to conform to the funds available. This proposal is an inversion of this process and circumvents these safeguards to promote spending restraint and ensure the taxpayers’ representatives are active agents in determining spending priorities.
This means depending on who is in political power as Governor, they could use their administrative appointment authority to push their policy agenda, game the State’s VLT and unilaterally pick winners and losers. They could choose to charge more VLT for “gas-guzzling” suburbans that would disproportionally harm large families. Or they could charge more VLT for non-American made cars or charge no VLT for two-door convertibles. There is no requirement in the legislation to ensure the registration fee is uniform among taxpayers.
The broad support for this type of legislative gimmickry is baffling. For years lawmakers have complained of too much power vested in the executive branch, yet here is a bill that willingly surrenders their constitutional taxing authority to the Governor.Shockingly this bill has generated a good deal of support among legislative members. SB 1146 received a unanimous vote from the members of the transportation committee and HB 2166 sailed through its committee with a vote of 6-1 and passed the House with a floor vote of 35 Ayes and 24 Nays.
Additionally, it is clear that both bills are designed to sidestep Prop 108, which requires a 2/3 vote in each legislative body to approve a tax increase. If lawmakers believe that this new registration fee is a good idea, they should identify and debate what that amount should be and set that amount in statute. But many lawmakers want to disguise the fact that they are supporting a tax increase, so bad public policy is what taxpayers get stuck with.
The only question now is how and when this tactic will be used next. Perhaps we should allow the director of Department of Revenue to set our income tax rates? An idea that would have been considered laughable a few year ago is now a real threat to Arizona taxpayers.
It would seem many of our elected leaders have accepted the premise that the ends justify the means. They so desperately want to put more money into infrastructure and roads, they care little about how it is ultimately accomplished. Because raising taxes is difficult both politically and process-wise, this tactic allows them to side step the process to raise taxes and avoid political accountability.
But lawmakers shouldn’t think they are fooling anyone. They may think this is a clever way to not have to answer to taxpayers about a tax increase. But they would be wrong.
by admin | Mar 6, 2018 | News and Updates
Each year there is a constant debate at the Legislature centered around a bevy of bills that preempt the authority of local government.
For the most part, the proponents of “local control” for cities and counties hang their hat on the explanation that the superior government is always the one closer to the people. This argument it is rarely explored, explained, or expounded upon further than a convenient slogan meant to excuse government overreach and conflate the idea of federalism with granting more power to local government.
And that is the crux of the dispute. In virtually every case when state lawmakers have decided to preempt local government, the debate has not been about how much power the state should have, but whether more autonomy and freedom should be granted to individuals, families, and businesses. Indeed, if cities were truly concerned with having the most local entity be in control, they would be fighting for the individual.
Instead, advocates for more local power continue to make the absurd claim that cities deserve the same relationship the States share with the Federal Government. This flawed argument ignores that fact that, unlike the States that created the federal government, cities and counties are political subdivisions of Arizona. Any authority that they do have has either been expressly delegated to them through state law or the constitution. Even the State Supreme Court ruled that (with one very narrow exception) local governments are not sovereign entities and must adhere to Arizona law.
Furthermore, attempting to elevate local governments in Arizona to the same status enjoyed by States in the US Constitution is a poor argument for more local power and demonstrates a philosophical misunderstanding of federalism. As expressed in the bill of rights and Declaration of Independence, America was founded on the idea that rights belong to the people, and that government remains the biggest threat to protecting those rights. If politicians decide to use their power to infringe on those freedoms, the geographic distance of that government is inconsequential. After all, is local tyranny better than state or federal tyranny?
It also cannot be ignored that in crafting a constitution of limited enumerated powers, the States granted the Federal Government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This was a wise inclusion as it was a bulwark against states implementing protectionist laws that would infringe upon the free travel and commerce of citizens throughout the country.
Arizona’s constitutional framework similarly allows state lawmakers to oversee and regulate intrastate commerce in order to protect individuals and businesses operating in different jurisdictions. It was never the intent to allow cities to create a patchwork of onerous and inconsistent business regulations on issues such as minimum wage, plastic bags or bans on no-impact home-based businesses. When these situations do arise, it is the obligation of our state policymakers to step in and intervene.
It is high time that the local control argument be unpacked and receive the intellectual scrutiny it deserves. There have been too many instances where the local control defense has been used to justify freedom crushing eminent domain abuse, suppress voter turnout, and to infringe upon our free speech rights. If we are to argue for local control, let that control be divested to individuals, families, and businesses. After all, the spirit of America is not city council-determination, but self-determination.
by admin | Mar 1, 2018 | News and Updates
A liberal San Francisco billionaire has decided to bring his radical environmentalist agenda to Arizona. Earlier this month a group called NextGen announced their plans to fund a ballot initiative to amend our state constitution requiring non-governmental utility providers generate at least 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2030.
Of course, this mandate won’t affect the backers of the measure, since NextGen is a California-based organization funded by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer. It doesn’t matter to him or NextGen that draconian renewable energy mandates will harm hardworking families and small businesses in Arizona. They probably like the idea that rural communities will pay a steep price as a result of sky high energy prices.
The intellectual dishonesty surrounding this measure is offensive. Though the media loves to paint Mr. Steyer as an altruistic “climate change crusader,” they continually ignore the fact that his lucrative hedge fund is heavily invested in the solar industry. It’s Steyer’s right to invest in any company he wants but forcing people to use solar through renewable mandates that pad his bottom line is corporate welfare at its worst.
Making the initiative even more destructive is their definition of renewable energy does NOT include nuclear power. This means that one of our largest, most reliable and clean sources of power (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station) would not count toward the mandate. The compliance costs to shift away from nuclear and to other energy sources is anticipated to result in an average utility rate increase of $500 per year for Arizona families.
Just as absurd, the language exempts Salt River Project (Arizona’s second largest utility) and all other governmental utilities from the energy mandate. Apparently, NextGen and Tom Steyer believe that SRP customers are ‘cleaner’ than other utility customers, and therefore will still be allowed to purchase cheap conventional power while everyone else is stuck picking up the tab. This is grossly unfair, and likely was done to reduce their political opposition at the ballot box.
The reality is this measure isn’t about improving our environment or making Arizona healthier. This is a power play by wealthy California interests that see our state as an easy target for their liberal ideas. To them, spending a couple million dollars sneaking their renewable mandate into Arizona’s constitution is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions Steyer has spent the last two election cycles throughout the country.
NextGen doesn’t have any real grassroots support, so they have brought in an out of state paid circulator firm to canvass our streets to collect the necessary 225,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. We urge Arizona residents to OPPOSE the Steyer initiative and tell NextGen to take their liberal ideas back to California.
by admin | Feb 26, 2018 | News and Updates
| Last year’s Rural Tax Credit bill has popped up again at the legislature, a $30 million hit to the budget when Arizona can least afford it. Proponents of the bill are drawing support by selling this idea as a way to spark investment and growth in rural areas of Arizona.
The crux of the legislation is $30 million in salable tax credits which the few eligible “investment firms” use to raise a maximum of $50 million in investible capital. The tax credits may be utilized to offset corporate income, individual income, or premium insurance taxes for the qualified investors for the fund. The money is essentially raised leveraging a taxpayer-subsidized risk pool and then used to invest in rural businesses.
HB 2590 is very similar to programs tried in other states under the name CAPCO (Capital Companies,) that have had dismal results. CAPCO has been widely regarded as one of the most inefficient ways to raise capital, and ineffective ways to invest capital. Because CAPCO has earned a terrible reputation for wasting millions of dollars, the program is continually rebranded and repackaged when pitched in different states.
Proponents of the bill claim this legislation is different and includes significant accountability provisions that make it different than other CAPCO plans.
These “protections” include a business plan, commitments for jobs created and retained, prohibition on charging management fees, requirement to have the approved credit-eligible capital 100 percent invested, and a demonstration that the investment result in greater local and state tax revenues than the aggregate of the tax credits received.
A two-part series written by the Pew Charitable Foundation points out the easy gamesmanship of many of these reporting requirements, concluding that “the investment firm typically bolster their claims using reports written by academics they hired. Independent policy analysts say the authors of the studies use methods that inflate the economic benefits of the programs.” Under HB 2590 it will be very easy to inflate the benefits since the language allows the investment fund to take credit for both created and “retained” jobs. In other words, they can invest in a company that never grows and they would claim 100% of the business activity in their economic analysis.
Management fees have been a source of abuse in other programs which stemmed the amount of money that made it to businesses. Though the legislation prohibits management fees, the mechanics of the investing structure is so complex it is not clear that other types of fees could not be charged using a different accounting label.
And though all of the approved credit-eligible capital for the program (up to $50 million) must be continuously invested in rural business for at least 3 years, this provision doesn’t make it a better deal for taxpayers. After all, the investment firm makes profit off monetizing the tax credit to begin with, as well as selling the investments.
Last year, lawmakers funded a $10 million special investment tax credit program, which can be used by these same investors to funnel investment dollars into rural Arizona. We encourage lawmakers to reject HB2590 and instead support better alternatives that don’t pick winners or losers or require taxpayers to subsidize the risk of investors.
|
|
|
by admin | Feb 2, 2018 | News and Updates
Arizona’s framers and past policymakers were extremely mindful about protecting the state’s property tax system from being gamed by private interests.
Arizona’s Constitution requires property taxes to be uniform between comparable property uses. It also prohibits government from subsidizing private businesses. And lastly, it restricts the granting of tax exemptions for properties that were taken by government in order to evade property taxes.
These guardrails make sense given the zero-sum nature of property taxes. When a tax levy amount is set, that total is divided and paid amongst the community’s individual residential and commercial taxpayers. Like a balloon being squeezed, when one taxpayer is taken off the property tax rolls, everyone else pays more.
Which brings us to the Board of Regents and Arizona State University. Like other political subdivisions in Arizona, ABOR and ASU is exempt from paying property taxes on land that they own.
Included in this exemption is the ASU University Research Park that was granted to ASU in the 1980s to promote their academic mission, fuel innovation and pursue higher learning and research in partnership with private enterprise. Yet upon closer examination, it has become evident that this “research park” is more about luring private development and corporate headquarters than engaging in academic endeavors.
The same can be said about other ABOR owned land as well. The most visible example is the “Marina Heights” development – 2.2 million square feet of office space that overlooks Tempe Town Lake. This project made headlines last month for being the largest real estate deal in Arizona history – selling for almost a billion dollars!
Normally a private business is required to pay property taxes regardless if they are located on government property or not. Yet the Universities have been able to dance around these legal obstacles by creating a lease-back of the property; retaining ownership and collecting a tariff from their private tenants.
In the case of the Marina Heights development, commercial businesses are dodging $12.1 million in property taxes a year. That means Tempe Union school districts, Maricopa Community College District, and the other receiving jurisdictions are shorted and that gaping hole in the property tax revenues must be made up by everyone else in the district.
But not only are local taxpayers impacted; so is everyone else in the state. Arizona’s K-12 system is financed only in part by the property tax formula; the rest is backfilled by the State’s general fund. ABOR’s State Farm building costs the State’s general fund $3.45 million and its “Research Park” upwards of $6 million.
Furthermore, this creative wading into the lucrative real estate business hasn’t stopped the university from asking for more state money or raising tuitions on students.
Hopefully lawmakers will see fit to close this property tax loophole. Rep. Vince Leach has introduced HB 2280, which would prohibit any development that doesn’t serve an academic purpose on University property from being exempt from paying property taxes. The bill passed out of House Ways and Means committee this week, and is awaiting a vote on the floor. The Club urges lawmakers to pass this commonsense fix and protect property owners from these unfair tax shifts.
Recent Comments