15.C.
City Council Meeting - FINAL
- Meeting Date:
- 06/02/2015
- From:
- Stacy Saltzburg, Deputy City Clerk
Information
TITLE
Discussion and Possible Action: Options related to joining the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition’s legal action challenging the constitutionality of ARS 23-204, which preempts local authority to regulate compensation and benefits contrary to voter adopted Proposition 202. (PREVIOUSLY AGENDA ITEM 15-B)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council direction
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On May 5, 2015 three Councilmembers agreed to place the above-referenced issue on the agenda for discussion and possible action.
In 2006 the voters of Arizona passed an initiative entitled "Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act or Proposition 202." That proposition authorizes cities, towns or counties to regulate local minimum wages and benefits as long as those wages are no lower than the state minimum wage. (A.R.S. 23-364(I)).
The Voter Protection Act prohibits the repeal by the Legislature of such initiatives and the Legislature cannot supersede or amend an initiative except by a three-fourths super-majority of each legislative body, and then only if such law furthers the objectives of the referendum or initiative. (Ariz. Const., Art. 4, pt. 1, Section 1, (6)(B)-(C), (14).)
In 2013, the Arizona Legislature, by majority vote, adopted A.R.S. 23-204 which attempts to preempt for the City's authority to regulate local compensation and benefits.
According to the Living Wage Coalition's Complaint, these two laws – one granting local authority on the issue of wages and benefits and the other attempting to take it away are in direct conflict.
On April 10, 2015, the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition filed a complaint to declare A.R.S. 23-204 passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2013 unconstitutional in order to restore local control over local issues. The lawsuit is not directly about increasing minimum wage; it is about clearing up the confusion that exists in Flagstaff (and other communities) about cities' authority to legislate in this area.
Options for discussion:
1. The City may seek permission or claim a right to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff along with the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition. The attorneys representing the Coalition have offered to represent the City in this litigation without charge of attorneys’ fees.
2. The City may wait for the ruling of the Superior Court. If the Superior Court rules against the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition, then the City could decide to write an amicus brief in support of municipal control of setting minimum wages. This could be handled in-house, displacing other work, or sent to outside counsel.
3. The City could adopt a resolution supporting or opposing the litigation.
4.The City could do nothing.
In 2006 the voters of Arizona passed an initiative entitled "Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act or Proposition 202." That proposition authorizes cities, towns or counties to regulate local minimum wages and benefits as long as those wages are no lower than the state minimum wage. (A.R.S. 23-364(I)).
The Voter Protection Act prohibits the repeal by the Legislature of such initiatives and the Legislature cannot supersede or amend an initiative except by a three-fourths super-majority of each legislative body, and then only if such law furthers the objectives of the referendum or initiative. (Ariz. Const., Art. 4, pt. 1, Section 1, (6)(B)-(C), (14).)
In 2013, the Arizona Legislature, by majority vote, adopted A.R.S. 23-204 which attempts to preempt for the City's authority to regulate local compensation and benefits.
According to the Living Wage Coalition's Complaint, these two laws – one granting local authority on the issue of wages and benefits and the other attempting to take it away are in direct conflict.
On April 10, 2015, the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition filed a complaint to declare A.R.S. 23-204 passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2013 unconstitutional in order to restore local control over local issues. The lawsuit is not directly about increasing minimum wage; it is about clearing up the confusion that exists in Flagstaff (and other communities) about cities' authority to legislate in this area.
Options for discussion:
1. The City may seek permission or claim a right to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff along with the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition. The attorneys representing the Coalition have offered to represent the City in this litigation without charge of attorneys’ fees.
2. The City may wait for the ruling of the Superior Court. If the Superior Court rules against the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition, then the City could decide to write an amicus brief in support of municipal control of setting minimum wages. This could be handled in-house, displacing other work, or sent to outside counsel.
3. The City could adopt a resolution supporting or opposing the litigation.
4.The City could do nothing.
INFORMATION:
COUNCIL GOALS:
10) Decrease the number of working poor
10) Decrease the number of working poor
Attachments
No file(s) attached.