top of page

CSA Weekly Update (06.05.2026)

  • Jun 5
  • 17 min read

On the June 5th, 2026, edition of the CSA Weekly Update:

Thanking Our Bill Sponsors: Honoring Senator Wendy Rogers!


On Monday, June 1st, Gila County Supervisor Tim Humphrey, Gila County Manager Michael O'Driscoll, and CSA staff visited Senator Wendy Rogers to present her with the 2026 CSA Good Government Award. We appreciate her sponsoring SB 1067, which helps prevent cost-shifts to taxpayers when counties address hazardous properties, and collaboration on budget priorities. Her leadership on this issue has been critical to ensuring the success of the bill, and the Association was grateful to work with Senator Rogers to get this measure to the Governor's office and across the finish line!


New Podcast Episode - Off the Charts: Why Home Values Rise but Tax Burdens Stay Low


In this episode of Off the Charts, we explore how Arizona's property tax framework has kept our relative property tax burden one of the lowest in the country—even as home prices have more than doubled. We break down the data behind levy limits, inflation, county budget pressures, and what Arizona's low-tax status means for taxpayers and local services.


Watch this week's episode on our YouTube channel here.


Explore our data tools at Data | CSA.


Check out our levy limit guide at County Levy Limits | CSA.




CSA Legislative Update: Where Are We Now?


As we wrap up the first week of June, the budget has yet to materialize. This update is intended to provide some context on where the session – and the FY 2027 budget negotiations (Budget Talks) – stand as we draw closer to June 30th.

 

Legislative Update


Since the Legislative Majority’s first budget proposal was vetoed in early May, (a) the State Senate has been meeting once-weekly, and (b) the House took an extended recess that concluded this week. Given the intermittent floor sessions, legislation has advanced only sporadically.


  • As it pertains to CSA bills: SB 1067: county abatement liens; notice; priority (Rogers) was signed into law, while HB 2439: public cold plunge; rules; exemption (Bliss) and HB 2096: forgivable financial assistance; cesspool remediation (Griffin) passed the Legislature and await the Governor’s signature.

  • A bill CSA opposed - SB 1566: malicious delay; enforcement; penalty (Petersen) - passed the State House on party-line (31-21-8) and the State Senate (17-9-4), with 3 Dems siding with the majority. The Governor signed it on May 29th.

  • Attendance has affected the Senate Majority’s ability to pass bills along party lines. On May 18th, Senators Shamp, Mesnard, Finchem, and Hoffman were absent. On May 26th, Senators Shamp, Hoffman, and Leach were absent. On June 1st, Senators Hoffman, Carroll, Shamp, and Petersen were absent. Since the Senate Majority is 17 members, losing more than one member renders the caucus unable to achieve the 50% + 1 necessary to pass bills without votes from the Democratic Minority. This will bear watching, as many of the referrals have advanced along party lines and will need at least 16 Republican Senators present to pass.

 

Budget Talks


FY 2027 budget negotiations are proceeding and some signs indicate that the budget may be introduced the week of June 8th through June 12th. In a rare boon to negotiators, the recent Fiscal Highlights published by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee indicated that revenues were coming in at about $55 million above the forecast. That gives the Governor and the Legislature a little more capacity to make a deal. 

 

If the budget doesn’t move next week, it is unlikely to happen the following week (June 15th through June 19th) because “a majority of legislative Republicans” and several legislative Democrats will be traveling to Washington D.C.  Republicans will be attending a “White House State Leadership Conference,” while Democrats have been invited to visit with congressional Democrats.

 

Legislative Referrals: What’s going to the ballot?


Rumors are that the Majority may send five additional measures to voters by the end of the 2026 Legislative Session. Combined with referrals voted out in 2025 and potential citizen initiatives, voters could see as many as 12 statewide measures on their ballot.

 

Three measures sent in 2025 are already on the ballot.

  • 2025’s SCR 1004: prohibit tax; monitoring; vehicle mileage (Hoffman), if approved, prohibits the state and any of its political subdivisions from “imposing a tax or fee on any person based on the vehicle miles traveled by the person in a motor vehicle” or “enact[ing] any rule or law to monitor or limit the vehicle miles traveled by a person in a motor vehicle unless the rule or law requires that the person voluntarily consents to the monitoring or limitation.”

  • 2025’s HCR 2021: food; municipal tax; exemption (Biasiucci), if approved, would exempt the sale of food items intended for consumption from municipal sales tax. Exempts cities with a rate of under 2%, but institutes a lifetime cap of 2% and requires any increases up to that amount to be approved by voters. Freezes the rate for cities with a rate of over 2%. Prohibits any increase in the twenty-four month period before June 30, 2027. For cities without a sales tax on such food items, requires approval by voters (with a lifetime cap of 2%).

  • 2025’s HCR 2055: drug cartels; terrorist organizations (Montenegro), if approved, declares “that drug cartels are terrorist organizations” and directs the Department of Homeland Security to “do everything within its authority to address the threat posed by drug cartels.” States that this declaration does not support “an alien’s claim for asylum under federal law.”

 

Four citizen initiatives are seeking signatures to qualify for the ballot.  Please remember, constitutional amendments must submit 383,923 signatures – while statutory amendments must receive 255,949 – by July 2, 2026. These are high thresholds, and several of these initiatives – or, potentially, all of these initiatives - may not meet the mark.

 

24 potential legislative referrals remain alive.


As we’ve shared, the Legislative Majority’s deliberations on what additional measures they’ll send to the ballot are a critical – yet opaque – part of the end of session. These discussions are multifaceted, and have been known to incorporate the following considerations:


  • Member service. As we all know, members have their own priorities.

    • Example #1: Two mirror proposals this year – SCR 1004: photo enforcement systems; voter approval (Rogers) and HCR 2004: photo enforcement systems; prohibition (Martinez) – place limits on the local use of photo radar. A referral on this subject was nearly sent to the ballot last year (2025’s SCR 1002: photo enforcement systems; prohibition (Rogers)), but ended up falling short in the last days of session. Multiple members of the Legislative Majority expressed dissatisfaction with the bill not being referred on the floor in the waning days of the 2025 session. If there’s a bill that members want to see on the ballot, it may be one of these two.

    • Example #2: Last year, Speaker Steve Montenegro introduced a referral that – if approved - would prohibit the state from doing any one of a number of activities that would “support giving preferential treatment to or discriminating against any individual on the basis of race or ethnicity” (2025’s HB 2042: preferential treatment; discrimination; prohibited acts (Montenegro). This year, he has a referral that’s still alive on the same topic: HCR 2044: preferential treatment; discrimination; prohibited acts (Montenegro).

    • Example #3: For several years running, Majority Leader John Kavanagh has sponsored legislation dealing with gender identity and public school restrooms (2025’s SB 1003, 2024’s SB 1182, 2023’s SB 1040). This year’s version -  SCR 1006: schools; biological sex; requirements (Kavanagh) – comes as a referral.


  • Combating voter initiatives. It’s not unheard of that the Legislature could send measures to the ballot in an attempt to combat voter initiatives. As we saw in 2024, when the Legislature authorized a referral that outright prohibited top-two primaries and the voters brought forward an initiative that required nonpartisan primaries, conflicting measures can result in both failing.


  • Driving turnout. Many times, we hear that legislators will try to select certain measures to boost turnout. This is under the assumption that people will be more motivated to go to the polls if there’s a really salient issue that they care about under consideration, and that such issues will be given preference.


  • Available funding for campaign. A referral being voted out of the Legislature is really just the first step. To get enough support to win statewide, there typically has to be entities willing to fund a campaign. This assumes preference is given to measures with backers built-in.

    • Example #1: HCR 2051: ballot measures; circulators; revenue; disclosure (Carbone) is a referral that requires circulators of local petitions to disclose – verbally and by wearing a badge – the state in which they reside. It also requires additional disclosures for the entities funding those local initiative and referendum campaigns. Unlike other referrals, this one has a star-studded, and powerful, list of backers: various Chambers of Commerce (CoC) (the Arizona CoC, the Greater Phoenix CoC, Valley Partnership, the Chandler CoC, the East Valley CoC, the Greater Flagstaff CoC, the East Valley CoC Alliance, the West Valley CoC, the Buckeye Valley CoC, the Gilbert CoC), various industry groups (Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association, Arizona Multihousing Association, Arizona Farm Bureau, United Dairymen of Arizona, Homebuilders of Central Arizona, Associated General Contractors, Arizona Rock Products, Arizona Mining Association), and other interest groups like Americans for Prosperity. If the business community has anything to say about it, this referral will be on the ballot.


  • Voter apathy. As the ballots get longer, down ballot races suffer. This holds true for referrals, which – on the ballots I’ve voted, at least – are at the very end. If you place too many referrals, do you risk the chance of some of them being lost in the shuffle?

 

Full list of referrals that remain viable 


The “likely” category. All referrals that remain viable must have made it past the subject matter committees in the second chamber. This means that most of them are still awaiting a hearing in the second chamber’s Committee on Rules, and recent years have shown that – until each chambers’ Legislative Majorities come to a final determination on what they’ll send to the ballot (likely after budget) – that’s where they’ll stay. But, in breaking with recent tradition, the Legislative Majority has advanced two measures out of the Rules Committee. This is sufficient reason to believe that these two measures will be included in the five to be referred.


  • #1: HCR 2040: school districts; labor organizations; resources (Olson). Prohibits a school district from using “public monies and public resources to support the operations of a labor organization.” Prohibits a district from (a) deducting payment from an employee’s paycheck for payment of labor organization dues, (b) providing access to internal communications to distribute labor organization recruiting information or political materials, or (c) using public monies or public resources to perform labor organization activities during working hours. Prohibits the state from negotiating with a labor organization for an exclusive representation agreement, collective bargaining agreement, or any other agreement. Prohibits teachers from striking or engaging in work stoppages.

  • #2: SCR 1006: schools; biological sex; requirements (Kavanagh). States that a person has a private cause of action against a school if they encounter “someone of the opposite sex” when “in a multioccupancy restroom or changing facility that is designated for the person’s sex” or “is required … to share sleeping quarters with someone of the opposite sex who is not a member of the person’s family” if a member of school staff gave the person of the opposite sex permission. Prohibits a school employee or independent contractor from knowingly addressing a student under 18 years of age as a pronoun differing from their biological sex or a first name/nickname “other than the first or middle name that is listed on the student’s official records” without parent approval. Requires a public school to provide “reasonable accommodation” to a person who is “unwilling or unable” to use a restroom or changing facility “designated for that person’s sex” and who submits both a written request for reasonable accommodation and “satisfactory evidence of the person’s sex.” Reasonable accommodations can include access to single-occupancy restroom/changing facility or an employee restroom/changing facility.

 

The rest. The 22 remaining referrals will compete for the final three spots.


  • #3: SCR 1001: citizenship; identifications; contributions; early voting (Bolick). Requires that voters be provided the option for on-site tabulation. Requires every voter to show “valid, government-issued proof of identity” before casting a ballot. States that only citizens may register to vote, and that Arizona elections shall be decided solely the votes of eligible citizens. Prohibits foreign nationals from contributing or expending money or anything of value to influence an election. States that the people and the Legislature may enact laws governing elections provided they are reasonably connected to a legitimate state interest (such as “timely and accurate election results,” “efficient election administration,” “election security,” and “preserving public confidence in elections.”

  • #4: HCR 2001: citizenship; identification; contributions; early voting (Kolodin). Mirror of SCR 1001 (above).

  • #5: HCR 2003: interscholastic; intramural athletics; biological sex (Bliss). States, beginning on July 1, 2027, that a school or athletic association that provides or maintains restrooms/locker rooms/shower rooms/private spaces shall not permit an individual to use that space if it is not designated for the individual’s sex. Expands existing prohibitions on opening sports designated for “females, women, or girls” to “athletes of the male sex” to include athletic associations.

  • #6: HCR 2004: photo enforcement systems; prohibition (Martinez). Prohibits a local authority or state agency from using a photo enforcement system to identify violators of certain ordinances if they do not have a contract with an operator before December 31, 2026. Requires local authorities with a contracted operator to seek approval of voters for continued use of the system at the next general election. Approval at the ballot grants license to continue to operate the system for ten years. Expands definition of “photo enforcement system” to include license plate readers.

  • #7: SCR 1004: photo enforcement systems; voter approval (Rogers). Mirror of HCR 2004 (above).

  • #8: HCR 2016: fees; taxes; freeze; affordability (Keshel).  Prohibits a city, town, or county – from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030 – from adopting a fee increase, a transaction privilege tax (TPT) or surcharge increase, or a utility rate increase (with limited exceptions). For the same time period, prohibits the imposition of a new tax classification or the expansion of the tax base. Prohibits circumvention of this section via renaming/reclassification/restructuring of fees, altering methodologies/assumptions/service areas/customer classes/cost allocations, imposing a new charge substantially similar in effect to an increase, or adopting or amending a fee/tax/utility rate immediately prior to the bill. Exempts increases approved at the ballot by 60% or more of voters.

  • #9: HCR 2044: preferential treatment; discrimination; prohibited acts (Montenegro).  Presently, the state is prohibited from granting preferential treatment to – or discriminating against – any individual or group on the basis of “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” This adds new language that prohibits the state from (a) compelling an applicant/employee/contractor to endorse or support preferential treatment for (or discrimination against) any individual on the basis of race or ethnicity, (b) spending public monies to operate or contract for an office or position responsible for promoting preferential treatment toward/discrimination against an individual/group on the basis of race/ethnicity, or (c) implementing a disciplinary policy that treats students/employees differently on the basis of race/ethnicity. Contains a number of other related provisions.

  • #10: HCR 2051: ballot measures; circulators; revenue; disclosure (Carbone). For all petitions – for both statewide and local initiatives – requires paid circulators to “verbally disclose the state in which the circulator legally resides and that the circulator is a paid circulator.” Additionally, requires a paid circulator to wear a badge that states their paid status and the state in which they reside. Newly requires local initiatives to be subject to strict scrutiny regarding constitutional and statutory initiative requirements. Newly requires paid circulators for local petitions to register with the Secretary of State (and specifies that failure to do so results in disqualification of collected petitions). Prohibits pay per-signature for local initiatives. Requires local initiatives proposing mandatory expenditure to identify revenues necessary to cover the fund.

  • #11: HCR 2056: medical mandates; right to refuse (Kupper). States that “the right to refuse medical mandates is hereby recognized and protected as a fundamental and inherent right of every individual. A government entity may not mandate, require, coerce, or compel any individual to accept, receive, or administer any medical product or treatment that involves invasion of or affixing any item or article to the body for any reason or purpose, including as a condition of employment, education, entry, or access to any facility or space, participation in services, or the exercise of any right, privilege, or benefit.”

  • #12: HCR 2058: AHCCCS; comprehensive claims audit (Carbone). Directs the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to issue an RFP from qualified audit vendors for a “comprehensive claim-level audit of this state’s Medicaid program administered by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.”

  • #13: SCR 1002: campaign finance; aggregate report; amount (Kavanagh). Presently, contributions from in-state individuals whose contributions do not exceed $100 do not need to be itemized on campaign finance reports. This referral would increase that amount to $200.

  • #14: SCR 1005: elections; foreign contributions; prohibition (Finchem). Prohibits a “foreign national” from giving – and a person, entity, or committee from accepting – money or in-kind goods or services contributed to influence the outcome of an election on a ballot measure, question, issue, or proposition (including an initiative or referendum). Requires a person/entity/committee required to file campaign finance reports to attest under penalty of perjury that they have not accepted donations, goods, or services in violation of this law. Exempts federally-recognized sovereign tribal nations from this section.

  • #15: SCR 1012: compensation; independent salary commission (Gowan). Expands the existing salary commission – which “recommends” salaries for elective state offices (legislative salaries must be approved by voters, executive-level salaries must be approved in the budget) – to include additional members (the Chief Justice, appointees of Minority Leaders) and additional responsibilities (salaries for Justices, Judges of courts of record, and Clerks of the Superior Court). States that the expanded committee’s expanded recommendations take effect at the end of the fiscal year unless the Legislature specifically disapproves the change by joint resolution.

  • #16: SCR 1020: compensation; elective state officers; inflation (Kavanagh). On approval, adjusts salaries of State Legislators by inflation since the last approval by voters.

  • #17: SCR 1022: legislature; ninety house districts (Mesnard). The State House of Representatives currently sits at 60 members. This referral would increase the number of State Representatives to 90, and would also specify that each of the 90 State House districts are to be geographically separate. In so doing, it would eliminate the “single-shot” strategy used by both Republicans and Democrats to secure a seat in politically competitive districts.

  • #18: SCR 1023: independent redistricting commission; membership (Mesnard). Expands the current Independent Redistricting Commission – with this, the “Fair and Independent Redistricting Commission” – from 5 members to 9. Specifies that the population of the largest legislative district may not be more than 5,000 persons larger than the population of the smallest legislative district. Subjects the Commission to Open Meeting Law.

  • #19: SCR 1024: legislature; district residency (Mesnard). Requires a legislative candidate to reside in their district – and be a member of their political party – for at least one year prior to the election.

  • #20: SCR 1025: legislative sessions; opening date (Mesnard). Would start the legislative session on the fourth, rather than the second, Monday of each January.

  • #21: SCR 1027: general election day; all offices (Mesnard). Would require that city, town, and school districts hold elections on the consolidated General Election date.

  • #22: SCR 1028: revenue increases; administrative fee authorization (Mesnard). Would require the approval of 2/3 of the Legislature for increases to fees or assessments set by a state officer or agency.

  • #23: SCR 1040: justices; judges; mandatory retirement age (Shope). Would raise the mandatory retirement age for Justices and Judges of courts of record from 70 to 75.

    • Presently, the two Supreme Court Justices closest to mandatory retirement are Justice Bolick (68) and Chief Justice Timmer (65).

  • #24: SCR 1049: death sentence; choice; firing squad (Payne). Permits a defendant sentenced to death to choose their method of execution. Expands available methods of execution to include death by firing squad (and stipulates that the firing squad must consist of at least three shooters and one blank round). Notes that if the defendant does not choose a method of execution, the default method is lethal injection. Specifies, if an option is invalidated by an unappealable court order or is unavailable in the state, that the defendant may choose from other options and judgment of death shall be inflicted “by any lawful means available.” 


So, What's Next?


In short: we’re expecting the FY 2027 budget to roll out next week. Additionally, please find an in-depth review of the state of the 2026 ballot – and, specifically, the referrals and citizen initiatives that may be placed on it – below under Legislative Referrals.

Special Districts Overview: County Free Library Districts


County Free Library Districts are a long-standing form of local service delivery in Arizona, authorized under title 48 and first established in 1929. Today, 11 counties operate under this structure, using it to provide coordinated library services across both incorporated and unincorporated areas. A county free library district may be created by a county Board of Supervisors, and cities and towns within the county may elect to participate, allowing library services to extend across multiple local governments under a single district framework.



The district is responsible for providing core library services, including access to information and technology, spaces for study and learning, educational programming for all age groups, and literacy initiatives ranging from early childhood to workforce development. Districts may also enter into contracts with other counties to extend library privileges, with funding arrangements supported through agreed-upon payments into the library district fund. Funding for county free library districts comes primarily from a dedicated secondary property tax.


To learn more about Library Districts, check out our Special District Overview on our website here.

Save the Date: CSA Annual Policy Summit


In October 2026, Supervisors from across the state will meet in Coconino County for the Annual CSA Policy Summit. The 61 county supervisors use this event to vote on the Association's 2027 legislative, budget, and research agendas. Registration details will be out soon. Looking forward to seeing you all there!


Where to Watch: Upcoming Live Proceedings


The Legislative Session has reached a critical point - committees are no longer regularly meeting to process bills. As such - barring meetings to evaluate executive nominations or to process the FY 2027 budget - most action will occur on the floor, in Rules, or in Caucus. These agendas are typically not released until the day before, so it becomes more difficult to predict what will happen. As agendas/calendars have not been posted for next week's action, we will be updating you on where to find agendas as they become available. CSA's staff will be sure to reach out if immediate action by Supervisors becomes necessary, and regular legislative updates will continue.


To see the full legislative calendar, click here.


To see live proceedings, click here.


To see archived meetings, click here.

Lifelong Learning: Upcoming NACo Webinars


Leveraging Opioid Settlement Funds for Housing Supports: Strategies for Counties

Monday, June 8, 2026 | 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. ET


Counties across the country are working to expand safe and supportive housing for their residents with substance use disorder, recognizing housing as a critical part of the recovery continuum of care. This webinar will highlight practical strategies for using opioid settlement funds to support housing initiatives at the local level. Given ongoing ambiguity around allowable uses of settlement funds, the session will offer clear guidance on emerging models, compliance considerations and opportunities to fund housing as part of broader recovery infrastructure. 


Funding for this workshop was made possible by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The views expressed in written conference materials, publications, and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


To register, please click here.


NACo Policy Insider Webinar Series: Understanding the Federal Landscape for Counties, June 18

Thursday, June 18, 2026 | 3:30 p.m. - 4 p.m. ET


Last year's Inside Washington series is now NACo Policy Insider, a bi-weekly webinar offering an overview of the full federal policy landscape impacting counties, as well as deeper dives into specific policy areas, equipping county leaders with insights, context, and strategies to engage effectively on key issues from transportation and infrastructure, to public lands, to health and human services, and more. 


To register, please click here.

Comments

bottom of page