Young waiter washing plates while standing in the cafe for the minimum wage. (DEPOSIT PHOTO)
The outcome of a legal battle between Flagstaff and state lawmakers could affect the decision of residents of other cities whether to enforce their own minimum wage.
Prosecutor Roopali Desai, who represents the city, wants a judge to overturn a provision in the new state budget that estimates the city at more than $ 1.1 million. This is meant to represent the additional cost borne by the state between what is currently $ 12.15 an hour under Arizona law and the higher of the current $ 15 approved by Flagstaff voters in 2016.
In new filings with the Maricopa County Superior Court, Desai denies the number.
She noted that the Flagstaff Ordinance specifically exempts state employees. And Desai said some of the other higher cost claims, such as those made by Coconino Community College, were really not state obligations.
The gist of their claim, however, is that the provision itself is unconstitutional.
Desai pointed out that both the original 2006 nationwide initiative, which first set a state minimum wage, and a 2016 revision that increased the numbers, explicitly allowed local communities to enact their own wage laws. The only requirement is that the number is at least as high as the state requires.
She argues that the reimbursement law is in violation of the Voter Protection Act, a constitutional provision that prohibits lawmakers from repealing or changing anything approved at the ballot box.
The only exception is when an act of law “serves the purpose” which voters approved, which Desai says is not. And even if it did, she said that it would still require a three-quarters vote from the House and Senate who did not get that move.
The state is fighting the measure with an emergency hearing before Judge James Smith later this month.
Katie Conner, spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich, said he was defending the law because it would “protect taxpayers from having to pay the costs associated with a city or town’s decision to increase the minimum wage”.
At the heart of the struggle is a provision that first appeared in the 2019-2020 budget. It allows the legislature to allocate the amount to reimburse the state for the cost of a higher minimum wage than state law – and judge the state administration department.
There are no direct costs to the state. The Flagstaff ordinance – like one going to voters in Tucson later this year – doesn’t apply to government employees. This also includes those who work in the higher education system.
But there are indirect effects, such as the Department of Economic Security having to pay more to providers of services for people with developmental disabilities. These private companies must pay their Flagstaff employees the city’s minimum wage, rather than the lower state amount.
But it was not until this year that the legislature actually included arguments in the budget and required that these municipalities pay an actual assessment.
Actually, it’s just about one community: Flagstaff. And based on the numbers of the gubernatorial and legislative budget officials, that number was set at $ 1,110,992.
The law also provides that the state treasurer must deduct this amount from his revenue share if the city fails to pay by the end of the calendar year. While Flagstaff fights the assessment, Desai wants to prevent the money from being withheld.
That number, she said, amounts to about 13% of the city’s state joint sales tax.
“The valuation and the resulting loss of revenue will likely disrupt the city’s operations, cause the city to reduce its services, and cause delays in the city’s infrastructure and capital replacement,” Desai told the judge.
She said the city council had already been forced to account for the loss of dollars in planning spending. And the results, Desai said, are tangible.
For example, she said the city doesn’t have the money to replace its aging body cameras for police officers. There is also a lack of funds to pay overtime to public security personnel, as well as to upgrade its computer systems and cybersecurity measures.
And then there’s the $ 1.4 million the city planned to replace its handcart, the only one in the area.
In an attempt to block the budget maneuver, Desai pointed out that this is not the first time lawmakers have tried to circumvent what voters approved.
The first came in 2013 with a law that said local governments did not have the power to set their own minimum wage.
When the challengers filed suit, the Attorney General did not defend the law, but instead agreed that the measure is invalid.
The legislature returned in 2016 with a new measure. While it does not affect the ability of cities to set their own minimum wage, it seeks to prevent them from setting standards for paid and unpaid vacation, meal breaks and rest. That case went to trial, with the state appeals court saying the voter-approved initiative specifically allows local governments to set not only wages but other benefits as well.
This led to this 2019 law on local reimbursement – and new efforts to assess Flagstaff on the costs the state says will incur.
Comments are closed.