Dentists get OK from Senate committee for Botox
A Senate panel voted Wednesday to allow dental patients to get their lips puffed up, cheeks filled out and brow wrinkles smoothed at the same place they now get their cavities filled. And at least part of the reason for it is to buttress the earnings of dentists.
Without dissent, members of the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services agreed to expand what dentists can do to include providing Botox injections for cosmetic purposes. This involves injecting a toxin that is designed to paralyze muscles, a move that can decrease wrinkles, particularly in the forehead.
The same measure, SB 1074, also would allow the cosmetic use of “dermal fillers,” chemicals that can get rid of deep-set lines in the face and neck, as well as plumping up lips.
John MacDonald, lobbyist for the Arizona Dental Association, told legislators that state lawmakers that these practices already are within the scope of what dentists are allowed to do. Only thing is, he said, they are limited to “therapeutic” situations.
Brian Powley, a dentist who practices in Paradise Valley, told Capitol Media Services that could include injections of what is formally known as botulinum toxin type A into a patient with temporomandibular joint dysfunction, better known as TMJ. He said it has the effect of inactivating the muscles to grant pain relief.
Similarly, Powley said that fillers might be appropriate after major jaw surgery.
But what dentists in Arizona can’t do, at least not legally, is advertise for patients who simply want to look better rather than having it part of a dental treatment plan.
Phoenix dentist Kevin Ortale told lawmakers there’s no reason for the distinction — or the restrictions.
He pointed out that under Arizona law some of these procedures, particularly Botox injections, already can be performed even by nurses and others working at medical spas simply because they are practicing under the off-site supervision of doctors who may have no specific experience in facial issues.
The alternative, Ortale said, is to have “a uniquely talented group of medical professionals, highly experienced with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of injections in and around the mouth.”
Still, there is a financial component.
Ortale told lawmakers his business is down by almost 20% since the COVID outbreak. And he said he is not alone.
“It hit our community,” Ortale told legislators.
“I have waited patiently to embark on this journey utilizing Botox and dermal fillers, hoping to expand and build back my vitality and production within my practice,” he continued. “My team, my peers, my patients and my hours of dedication are ready for this to pass.”
Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, said she was particularly struck by those comments about how the pandemic has affected dentists.
“It’s a reminder of the impact and what’s happened by shuttering our businesses and by closing things down,” she said. Townsend said lawmakers need to “look for ways to help recover from the decisions that were made as we went through this pandemic.”
The measure now goes to the full Senate after legal review by the Rules Committee.
Republican lawmakers propose flat tax, $12.8B budget
House and Senate leaders and Gov. Doug Ducey have agreed on a roughly $12.8 billion spending plan, including the state’s largest tax cut in recent memory – but the budget lacks the Republican votes it needs to pass in its current form.
The budget proposes to cut nearly $3 billion in taxes over the next three years, mostly through collapsing income tax brackets to a single 2.5% rate in 2023. It would cut taxes for all Arizonans, though higher-income taxpayers would see significantly bigger benefits.
“I like the tax cut and I like that it’s balanced,” said House Speaker pro tem Travis Grantham. “Those are my most important asks.”
While legislative leaders and the governor have reached an agreement, rank-and-file Republicans are still viewing the budget plan with skepticism.
“Do I think I will be on it in the end? Absolutely,” said Rep. David Cook, R-Globe.
But for now, Cook said, he needs answers to a number of questions, including whether the state is spending enough to repair or demolish decrepit state buildings before he can accept the huge cuts to revenue included in the tax plan.
He also wants to reach an agreement on increasing unemployment benefits and replenishing the state’s unemployment fund, one of his top priorities for the year that GOP leaders and the governor said needed to wait for budget negotiations.
Cook’s seatmate, Sen. T.J. Shope of Coolidge, said he’s a “no” on the budget in its current form because it doesn’t include funding to widen I-10 between Casa Grande and Phoenix. He asked for $50 million for the project this year, but his bill stalled in the House and the money is not included in budget documents shared with Republican lawmakers and obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times.
Other Republicans are skeptical of just how much spending is included in the plan. Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said he likes some of the new funding, including plans to spend $50 million annually on special education and new spending on universities, which will receive an ongoing $35 million as well as a one-time $30 million for university operations.
“There’s just a truckload of a lot of items that might be a million dollars here or there and it adds up,” he said.
Mesnard is also skeptical of new tax credits proposed in the budget, arguing that they run counter to the goals of streamlining the state’s tax code by moving to a single income tax rate.
Beginning in the 2022 tax year, the state would collapse its current four tax brackets to two brackets, one paying 2.55% and the other paying 2.98%. Taxpayers now pay between 2.59% and 4.5%. The following year, all Arizonans would pay a single 2.5% rate.
Some Arizonans would still end up paying more than 2.5% of their taxable income, but the plan also calls for a top marginal tax rate of 4.5% that would protect the wealthiest Arizonans from paying as much as they otherwise would have because of a new education surcharge of 3.5%. Instead of paying their full tax rate and the surcharge, wealthy Arizonans would be able to pay no more than 4.5% of their taxable income to the state each year, and the state would make up the missing education spending through its
General Fund.
The shift to a flat tax alone is expected to cost the state $1 billion in FY23 and $1.5 billion in FY24.
That alone will prevent Republican leaders from getting any support from Democrats, said Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Phoenix.
“There are some good things in there, but overall the size of the tax cut as currently constituted, I don’t think any democrats could support that,” Bowie said.
Without any support from Democrats, threadbare Republican majorities in the House and Senate require every Republican to vote for the budget proposal. Bowie said several of his Republican colleagues are opposed to the idea of a flat tax, which could reduce revenue received by cities and help wealthy urban Arizonans more than poorer rural residents.
Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Phoenix, has led a charge over the past several weeks to amend the flat tax proposal to ensure cities see no cuts to funding. Arizona cities can’t enact local income taxes, and in return the state agreed to share 15% of state income tax revenues among cities and towns.
Boyer proposed increasing that shared revenue to 20% if the Legislature insisted on moving to a single income tax rate, but other Republicans aren’t on board. Mesnard said doing so would result in people who live in unincorporated areas subsidizing cities.
“If you are giving even more, a higher percentage to those cities, that’s even more these folks are paying into the cities they don’t live in,” he said.
While there are some holdouts, Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, insisted that most Republicans favor the plan to cut nearly $3 billion in taxes over the next three years.
“The tax cut is well supported,” he said. “It’s a Republican thing to do.”
One challenge to passing a budget may come from a Republican senator who described the budget plan as “the last thing on (her) mind.” Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Apache Junction, has a single-minded focus on election security legislation she was stymied in passing earlier this year, and she said she won’t give Republican leaders a vote on a budget until her election bills get a vote.
Townsend expects a vote in the House could happen as early as this week, but if it doesn’t happen and leaders try to push a budget through the House and Senate, they won’t have her vote.
“I’m definitely not voting on the budget until my issues are taken care of, for sure,” Townsend said.
Staff writers Dillon Rosenblatt and Nathan Brown contributed to this report
House and Senate leaders and Gov. Doug Ducey have agreed on a roughly $12.8 billion spending plan, including the state’s largest tax cut in recent memory – but the budget lacks the Republican votes it needs to pass in its current form.
The budget proposes to cut nearly $3 billion in taxes over the next three years, mostly through collapsing income tax brackets to a single 2.5% rate in 2023. It would cut taxes for all Arizonans, though higher-income taxpayers would see significantly bigger benefits.
“I like the tax cut and I like that it’s balanced,” said House Speaker pro tem Travis Grantham. “Those are my most important asks.”
While legislative leaders and the governor have reached an agreement, rank-and-file Republicans are still viewing the budget plan with skepticism.
“Do I think I will be on it in the end? Absolutely,” said Rep. David Cook, R-Globe.
But for now, Cook said, he needs answers to a number of questions, including whether the state is spending enough to repair or demolish decrepit state buildings before he can accept the huge cuts to revenue included in the tax plan.
He also wants to reach an agreement on increasing unemployment benefits and replenishing the state’s unemployment fund, one of his top priorities for the year that GOP leaders and the governor said needed to wait for budget negotiations.
Cook’s seatmate, Sen. T.J. Shope of Coolidge, said he’s a “no” on the budget in its current form because it doesn’t include funding to widen I-10 between Casa Grande and Phoenix. He asked for $50 million for the project this year, but his bill stalled in the House and the money is not included in budget documents shared with Republican lawmakers and obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times.
Other Republicans are skeptical of just how much spending is included in the plan. Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said he likes some of the new funding, including plans to spend $50 million annually on special education and new spending on universities, which will receive an ongoing $35 million as well as a one-time $30 million for university operations.
“There’s just a truckload of a lot of items that might be a million dollars here or there and it adds up,” he said.
Mesnard is also skeptical of new tax credits proposed in the budget, arguing that they run counter to the goals of streamlining the state’s tax code by moving to a single income tax rate.
Beginning in the 2022 tax year, the state would collapse its current four tax brackets to two brackets, one paying 2.55% and the other paying 2.98%. Taxpayers now pay between 2.59% and 4.5%. The following year, all Arizonans would pay a single 2.5% rate.
Some Arizonans would still end up paying more than 2.5% of their taxable income, but the plan also calls for a top marginal tax rate of 4.5% that would protect the wealthiest Arizonans from paying as much as they otherwise would have because of a new education surcharge of 3.5%. Instead of paying their full tax rate and the surcharge, wealthy Arizonans would be able to pay no more than 4.5% of their taxable income to the state each year, and the state would make up the missing education spending through its
General Fund.
The shift to a flat tax alone is expected to cost the state $1 billion in FY23 and $1.5 billion in FY24.
That alone will prevent Republican leaders from getting any support from Democrats, said Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Phoenix.
“There are some good things in there, but overall the size of the tax cut as currently constituted, I don’t think any democrats could support that,” Bowie said.
Without any support from Democrats, threadbare Republican majorities in the House and Senate require every Republican to vote for the budget proposal. Bowie said several of his Republican colleagues are opposed to the idea of a flat tax, which could reduce revenue received by cities and help wealthy urban Arizonans more than poorer rural residents.
Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Phoenix, has led a charge over the past several weeks to amend the flat tax proposal to ensure cities see no cuts to funding. Arizona cities can’t enact local income taxes, and in return the state agreed to share 15% of state income tax revenues among cities and towns.
Boyer proposed increasing that shared revenue to 20% if the Legislature insisted on moving to a single income tax rate, but other Republicans aren’t on board. Mesnard said doing so would result in people who live in unincorporated areas subsidizing cities.
“If you are giving even more, a higher percentage to those cities, that’s even more these folks are paying into the cities they don’t live in,” he said.
While there are some holdouts, Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, insisted that most Republicans favor the plan to cut nearly $3 billion in taxes over the next three years.
“The tax cut is well supported,” he said. “It’s a Republican thing to do.”
One challenge to passing a budget may come from a Republican senator who described the budget plan as “the last thing on (her) mind.” Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Apache Junction, has a single-minded focus on election security legislation she was stymied in passing earlier this year, and she said she won’t give Republican leaders a vote on a budget until her election bills get a vote.
Townsend expects a vote in the House could happen as early as this week, but if it doesn’t happen and leaders try to push a budget through the House and Senate, they won’t have her vote.
“I’m definitely not voting on the budget until my issues are taken care of, for sure,” Townsend said.
Staff writers Dillon Rosenblatt and Nathan Brown contributed to this report
Ducey signs bill to protect businesses from Covid-related lawsuits
April 5, 2021
Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that would shield businesses from Covid-related lawsuits – one of his top legislative priorities of the year that would also apply to hospitals, nursing homes and schools.
The bill, SB1377, from Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, was more than a year in the making after the 2020 Arizona Legislature was not able to pass a similar bill due to the pandemic cutting the session short. This year, it passed along party lines in the House, and gained two Democrats supporting it in the Senate.
Ducey said in his State of the State address in January that this is something he wanted to see completed – it was one of two priorities he actually listed in his speech. The other is to expand off-reservation gambling, which has stalled in the Senate for at least one month now.
Doug Ducey
He said the bill would prevent a statewide emergency from lining “the pockets of trial attorneys with frivolous lawsuits.”
Attorney Tom Ryan, who specializes in injury and wrongful death civil litigation, said the measure was unnecessary.
“This is performative theater art for the uninformed masses that the governor is actually doing something to protect business for a problem that simply doesn’t exist,” he told Capitol Times.
But more than that, Ryan said he thinks the bill is unconstitutional based on a provision in the state constitution that states “the right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation.” Ryan said he thinks that applies to Leach’s bill.
Garrick Taylor, the interim president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said even though this is not necessarily been an Arizona problem yet, it doesn’t mean it’s unnecessary.
“This is a common-sense piece of legislation that reflects the unusual times that we are living in,” he said. “It’s important because litigation is costly and a distraction from the mission of the business or entity that’s being sued, and that’s all the more the case when the litigation is of dubious variety.”
Taylor said the American Tort Reform Association found that the Trial Lawyers Assocation, which opposed the bill, ran more than 175,000 TV advertisements costing roughly $35 million “to recruit Covid-19 plaintiffs” between March and December of 2020.
“That is a sign that there is a segment of the trial bar that views Covid lawsuits as potentially lucrative,” Taylor said, adding that it sends a clear signal that “this is likely to be the next frontier of litigation.”
Republicans overwhelmingly supported the liability measure because they said businesses struggled so much during the pandemic so this would provide them with protections from “frivolous lawsuits.”
Democrats – outside of Senators Sean Bowie and Christine Marsh – opposed it because they deemed it as unnecessary given no lawsuits have existed of the nature the bill aims to avoid. The bill is also retroactive to the beginning of the Covid pandemic in March 2020, wiping out any would-be lawsuits that do not currently exist.
“Arizona’s health care professionals and others on the front lines have worked day and night this last year to protect sick individuals and vulnerable populations,” Ducey said in a prepared written statement. “We have taken steps to protect both health care heroes and vulnerable Arizonans during the pandemic, and today’s legislation strengthens those protections.”
Vince Leach
“Small businesses need certainty under the law that if they act in good faith, they’ll be protected from frivolous lawsuits,” Leach said in a statement.
Several consumer advocates also opposed the bill because they thought it would reward “bad actors” like the bars and clubs in Old Town Scottsdale or Mill Ave in Tempe that had a direct link to increased positive cases around Memorial Day Weekend last year. Some bars were packed every night due to a loophole in Ducey’s executive order allowing them to appear as if they were restaurants that offered dine-in services.
Those bars included several owned by the family of Ducey’s senior health policy adviser that were eventually forced to close after severe public outcry, but now are open again after Ducey lifted all occupancy limitations and mask requirements.
The bill now puts the onus on individuals to prove with “clear and convincing evidence” that they got Covid from that place of business.
Rep. Richard Andrade, D-Glendale, opposed the bill in the House because he said he thought “employers need to be held liable.”
“This bill is stripping away their right to stay healthy and, most importantly, to work in a workplace with safety in mind and safe from getting COVID-19 during this pandemic,” he said.
Businesses advocates were pleased with the bill signing, immediately thanking Ducey and Leach for getting this to happen.
It’s not just an Arizona situation either. Leach cited “more than 2,000 coronavirus-related cases” across the country in his statement, but failed to list any examples locally. At least 25 other states now have a similar law.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a similar bill two weeks ago also hammering a similar message to Ducey about so-called “frivolous lawsuits.”
Ryan said there’s a reason why Arizona has only seen very few, if any, of these suits so far – mostly because they tend to be difficult and also expensive.
“They are self-limiting,” he said, adding that there is a lot of “risk management” involved from a legal perspective. “The reason you’re not seeing this tsunami of Covid cases in the state of Arizona is because the vast majority of plaintiff attorneys that handle these kinds of cases look at it and say, ‘what’s the likelihood of success?’ We understand how difficult it is, and contrary to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s idea that lawyers are just out there filing frivolous lawsuits everywhere … that’s a myth.”
Taylor said it’s not a “blanket immunity bill.”
“Our desire is to protect truly responsible actors who are doing their best under difficult circumstances,” he said.
By: Dillon Rosenblatt
April 5, 2021
Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that would shield businesses from Covid-related lawsuits – one of his top legislative priorities of the year that would also apply to hospitals, nursing homes and schools.
The bill, SB1377, from Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, was more than a year in the making after the 2020 Arizona Legislature was not able to pass a similar bill due to the pandemic cutting the session short. This year, it passed along party lines in the House, and gained two Democrats supporting it in the Senate.
Ducey said in his State of the State address in January that this is something he wanted to see completed – it was one of two priorities he actually listed in his speech. The other is to expand off-reservation gambling, which has stalled in the Senate for at least one month now.
Doug Ducey
He said the bill would prevent a statewide emergency from lining “the pockets of trial attorneys with frivolous lawsuits.”
Attorney Tom Ryan, who specializes in injury and wrongful death civil litigation, said the measure was unnecessary.
“This is performative theater art for the uninformed masses that the governor is actually doing something to protect business for a problem that simply doesn’t exist,” he told Capitol Times.
But more than that, Ryan said he thinks the bill is unconstitutional based on a provision in the state constitution that states “the right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation.” Ryan said he thinks that applies to Leach’s bill.
Garrick Taylor, the interim president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said even though this is not necessarily been an Arizona problem yet, it doesn’t mean it’s unnecessary.
“This is a common-sense piece of legislation that reflects the unusual times that we are living in,” he said. “It’s important because litigation is costly and a distraction from the mission of the business or entity that’s being sued, and that’s all the more the case when the litigation is of dubious variety.”
Taylor said the American Tort Reform Association found that the Trial Lawyers Assocation, which opposed the bill, ran more than 175,000 TV advertisements costing roughly $35 million “to recruit Covid-19 plaintiffs” between March and December of 2020.
“That is a sign that there is a segment of the trial bar that views Covid lawsuits as potentially lucrative,” Taylor said, adding that it sends a clear signal that “this is likely to be the next frontier of litigation.”
Republicans overwhelmingly supported the liability measure because they said businesses struggled so much during the pandemic so this would provide them with protections from “frivolous lawsuits.”
Democrats – outside of Senators Sean Bowie and Christine Marsh – opposed it because they deemed it as unnecessary given no lawsuits have existed of the nature the bill aims to avoid. The bill is also retroactive to the beginning of the Covid pandemic in March 2020, wiping out any would-be lawsuits that do not currently exist.
“Arizona’s health care professionals and others on the front lines have worked day and night this last year to protect sick individuals and vulnerable populations,” Ducey said in a prepared written statement. “We have taken steps to protect both health care heroes and vulnerable Arizonans during the pandemic, and today’s legislation strengthens those protections.”
Vince Leach
“Small businesses need certainty under the law that if they act in good faith, they’ll be protected from frivolous lawsuits,” Leach said in a statement.
Several consumer advocates also opposed the bill because they thought it would reward “bad actors” like the bars and clubs in Old Town Scottsdale or Mill Ave in Tempe that had a direct link to increased positive cases around Memorial Day Weekend last year. Some bars were packed every night due to a loophole in Ducey’s executive order allowing them to appear as if they were restaurants that offered dine-in services.
Those bars included several owned by the family of Ducey’s senior health policy adviser that were eventually forced to close after severe public outcry, but now are open again after Ducey lifted all occupancy limitations and mask requirements.
The bill now puts the onus on individuals to prove with “clear and convincing evidence” that they got Covid from that place of business.
Rep. Richard Andrade, D-Glendale, opposed the bill in the House because he said he thought “employers need to be held liable.”
“This bill is stripping away their right to stay healthy and, most importantly, to work in a workplace with safety in mind and safe from getting COVID-19 during this pandemic,” he said.
Businesses advocates were pleased with the bill signing, immediately thanking Ducey and Leach for getting this to happen.
It’s not just an Arizona situation either. Leach cited “more than 2,000 coronavirus-related cases” across the country in his statement, but failed to list any examples locally. At least 25 other states now have a similar law.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a similar bill two weeks ago also hammering a similar message to Ducey about so-called “frivolous lawsuits.”
Ryan said there’s a reason why Arizona has only seen very few, if any, of these suits so far – mostly because they tend to be difficult and also expensive.
“They are self-limiting,” he said, adding that there is a lot of “risk management” involved from a legal perspective. “The reason you’re not seeing this tsunami of Covid cases in the state of Arizona is because the vast majority of plaintiff attorneys that handle these kinds of cases look at it and say, ‘what’s the likelihood of success?’ We understand how difficult it is, and contrary to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s idea that lawyers are just out there filing frivolous lawsuits everywhere … that’s a myth.”
Taylor said it’s not a “blanket immunity bill.”
“Our desire is to protect truly responsible actors who are doing their best under difficult circumstances,” he said.
By: Dillon Rosenblatt
Court Says Ducey Can’t Allow Restaurants To Sell Booze To Go
Gov. Doug Ducey broke the law when he told police and liquor agents not to enforce statutes that prohibit restaurants from selling alcoholic beverages to go, a judge ruled Monday.
But, for the moment, it appears the governor is going to ignore the ruling — and allow the restaurants to keep competing illegally with bars — as he contemplates an appeal.
In an 18-page decision, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates brushed aside most of the claims by more than 100 owners of bars throughout the state that it was wrong of the governor to single out their establishments for closure while other alcohol-serving establishments like restaurants were allowed to remain open.
Gates said there was sufficient evidence that bars posed more of a threat to public health due to the spread of COVID-19 than other kinds of business establishments. And with the legislature having granted the governor broad powers during an emergency, he had sufficient justification for the orders.
But the judge said nothing in the Arizona Constitution or even the emergency powers statutes entitles Ducey to ignore laws entirely. And in this case, she said, legislators had expressly prohibited the off-premises sale of alcoholic beverages by restaurants, reserving that privilege for those who obtained licenses to operate bars.
“A provision that bars the enforcement of unlawful conduct is contrary to state law and thus, exceeds the power delegated to the governor,” Gates ruled.
Both Ducey and the Arizona Restaurant Association had argued that the special privilege was necessary to help keep the businesses financially afloat.
They, like the bars, had initially been shuttered entirely. And even now they have to operate with limited capacity.
Gates said that is all legally irrelevant.
“The court takes no position on whether the law should be changed to allow to-go alcohol,” the judge wrote. “It merely holds that action is outside the power delegated to the governor … during a state of emergency because the action is contrary to current Arizona law.”
One reason bar owners brought the claim is that, under state law, they are the ones who can sell drinks and alcohol to go.
That is one of the privileges they get by buying the more expensive bar license versus a restaurant liquor permit. The other is not having to maintain 40% of sales in food as do restaurants.
Attorney Ilan Wurman said that his clients, already harmed by a ban on indoor operations — more recently changed to restrictions — are being further hurt financially as those off-premises sales were going to the restaurants which can be their direct competitors.
Gates as much as acknowledged that in ordering Ducey to rescind his illegal order.
Ducey press aide Patrick Ptak said that the governor is reviewing the decision.
But there apparently are no immediate plans to actually comply while he contemplates an appeal. And here, too, the issue is providing financial relief to the restaurants.
“We want to make sure that we continue to help small businesses, and the Arizonans they employ, navigate through this pandemic,” Ptak said.
Dan Bogert, chief operating officer of the Arizona Restaurant Association, called the ruling “unfortunate,” pointing out they were closed for all of April and part of May and remain limited now to 50% capacity. The result, he said, is increased reliance on to-go orders — with those picking up meals also wanting alcoholic beverages.
“Without the ability to include alcohol with to-go orders, a key lifeline has been stripped from these businesses,” Bogert said. “This will no doubt lead to less profitability and possibly more permanent closure of our favorite gathering spots.”
For the moment, though, Gates said that other restrictions on bars can stand, even if they don’t apply to restaurants and other similar businesses. She said testimony covinces her there are certain things that happen in bars that make them “likely high-risk environments for the spread of the virus.” “For example, bar patrons often move between groups and tables, mixing with other groups with whom they did not arrive,” the judge said.
“Also, bars are often loud, which causes individuals to draw closer to hear one another and to speak louder, thus increasing the risk of transmission,” Gates continued. “Furthermore, mask wearing is incompatible with drinking, and drinking alcohol impairs decision-making.”
Then there are the dance floors. The issue, the judge said, is that people not only mix but that limited ventilation and turbulent airflow patterns result in an environment where respiratory droplets are more easily spread.
And, if nothing else, it comes down to who are the patrons.
“Bars also tend to attract a younger adult population, which currently represents a significant demographic carrying COVID-19 in
Arizona,” Gates said.
Wurman said the ruling is not the last word.
While Gates refused to immediately enjoin what Wurman said is the disparate treatment of bars, he said that still gives him a chance to make his case at a full-blown trial that there is no legitimate reason for discrimination. And that, he said, is buttressed by testimony from John Cocca, head of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, that in many cases there really is no difference between the activities of bars and restaurants.
Gov. Doug Ducey broke the law when he told police and liquor agents not to enforce statutes that prohibit restaurants from selling alcoholic beverages to go, a judge ruled Monday.
But, for the moment, it appears the governor is going to ignore the ruling — and allow the restaurants to keep competing illegally with bars — as he contemplates an appeal.
In an 18-page decision, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates brushed aside most of the claims by more than 100 owners of bars throughout the state that it was wrong of the governor to single out their establishments for closure while other alcohol-serving establishments like restaurants were allowed to remain open.
Gates said there was sufficient evidence that bars posed more of a threat to public health due to the spread of COVID-19 than other kinds of business establishments. And with the legislature having granted the governor broad powers during an emergency, he had sufficient justification for the orders.
But the judge said nothing in the Arizona Constitution or even the emergency powers statutes entitles Ducey to ignore laws entirely. And in this case, she said, legislators had expressly prohibited the off-premises sale of alcoholic beverages by restaurants, reserving that privilege for those who obtained licenses to operate bars.
“A provision that bars the enforcement of unlawful conduct is contrary to state law and thus, exceeds the power delegated to the governor,” Gates ruled.
Both Ducey and the Arizona Restaurant Association had argued that the special privilege was necessary to help keep the businesses financially afloat.
They, like the bars, had initially been shuttered entirely. And even now they have to operate with limited capacity.
Gates said that is all legally irrelevant.
“The court takes no position on whether the law should be changed to allow to-go alcohol,” the judge wrote. “It merely holds that action is outside the power delegated to the governor … during a state of emergency because the action is contrary to current Arizona law.”
One reason bar owners brought the claim is that, under state law, they are the ones who can sell drinks and alcohol to go.
That is one of the privileges they get by buying the more expensive bar license versus a restaurant liquor permit. The other is not having to maintain 40% of sales in food as do restaurants.
Attorney Ilan Wurman said that his clients, already harmed by a ban on indoor operations — more recently changed to restrictions — are being further hurt financially as those off-premises sales were going to the restaurants which can be their direct competitors.
Gates as much as acknowledged that in ordering Ducey to rescind his illegal order.
Ducey press aide Patrick Ptak said that the governor is reviewing the decision.
But there apparently are no immediate plans to actually comply while he contemplates an appeal. And here, too, the issue is providing financial relief to the restaurants.
“We want to make sure that we continue to help small businesses, and the Arizonans they employ, navigate through this pandemic,” Ptak said.
Dan Bogert, chief operating officer of the Arizona Restaurant Association, called the ruling “unfortunate,” pointing out they were closed for all of April and part of May and remain limited now to 50% capacity. The result, he said, is increased reliance on to-go orders — with those picking up meals also wanting alcoholic beverages.
“Without the ability to include alcohol with to-go orders, a key lifeline has been stripped from these businesses,” Bogert said. “This will no doubt lead to less profitability and possibly more permanent closure of our favorite gathering spots.”
For the moment, though, Gates said that other restrictions on bars can stand, even if they don’t apply to restaurants and other similar businesses. She said testimony covinces her there are certain things that happen in bars that make them “likely high-risk environments for the spread of the virus.” “For example, bar patrons often move between groups and tables, mixing with other groups with whom they did not arrive,” the judge said.
“Also, bars are often loud, which causes individuals to draw closer to hear one another and to speak louder, thus increasing the risk of transmission,” Gates continued. “Furthermore, mask wearing is incompatible with drinking, and drinking alcohol impairs decision-making.”
Then there are the dance floors. The issue, the judge said, is that people not only mix but that limited ventilation and turbulent airflow patterns result in an environment where respiratory droplets are more easily spread.
And, if nothing else, it comes down to who are the patrons.
“Bars also tend to attract a younger adult population, which currently represents a significant demographic carrying COVID-19 in
Arizona,” Gates said.
Wurman said the ruling is not the last word.
While Gates refused to immediately enjoin what Wurman said is the disparate treatment of bars, he said that still gives him a chance to make his case at a full-blown trial that there is no legitimate reason for discrimination. And that, he said, is buttressed by testimony from John Cocca, head of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, that in many cases there really is no difference between the activities of bars and restaurants.
CHAMBER STRONG
Frequently Asked Questions
Schedule a Membership Appointment
One-Minute Membership Assessment Survey
Join Now
The primary news source for this page is
The Arizona Capital Times
Frequently Asked Questions
Schedule a Membership Appointment
One-Minute Membership Assessment Survey
Join Now
The primary news source for this page is
The Arizona Capital Times
Judge Says Restaurants’ To Go Liquor Sales Illegal
A provision in a court ruling this week on bars and alcohol sales could end up curtailing business at some restaurants, which could then lead them to close.
In her decision Tuesday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates upheld Gov. Doug Ducey’s actions in keeping bars closed while allowing restaurants to remain open and serve alcohol. She said those actions were within Ducey’s broad authority to protect public health.
In her decision Tuesday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates upheld the actions by Gov. Doug Ducey in keeping bars closed while allowing restaurants to remain open and continue to serve alcohol. She said that was within his authority to protect public health.
But Gates did not look so kindly on a decision by the governor to tell his own Department of Liquor Licenses and Control to look the other way when restaurants decided to sell beer, wine and liquor out the front door, a move that was designed to help the financially struggling businesses.
That directive, the judge said, hardly fits within the actions Ducey is permitted to take in emergencies. And she said Ducey’s decision to suspend enforcement of a liquor law “impermissibly stretches” the governor’s power. What remains to be seen is whether the governor will rescind that part of his order. “We are reviewing the ruling,” said Ducey press aide Patrick Ptak.
But any move in that direction will get opposition from the Arizona Restaurant Association.
In March, Ducey used the emergency powers he had to close all bars and restaurants to patrons. But he agreed to pleas from the restaurant owners to allow them to continue to sell beer, wine and alcoholic beverages to customers who also were getting food to go. Only thing is, such off-premises sales are illegal under state law. So Ducey instructed agents for the liquor department to simply turn a blind eye to the violations.
Dan Bogert, chief operating officer of the restaurant group, said that move provided a “key lifeline” to restaurants. “They are helping to keep those places in business and employees employed,” he said. Since that time, Ducey has loosened the restrictions — at least on restaurants. They can provide dine-in services, but only at 50% of capacity. Bars remain closed unless they agree to operate under additional restrictions.
But the directive to liquor agents to ignore the violations by restaurants of law banning off-premises sales remains. Ptak said the directive was, and is,j ustified, calling it one of the “tough decisions” that the governor has had to make. “This has been a way for many establishments to maintain their operations while continuing to prioritize public health,” he said.
The only reason any of this came to the attention of Gates is the lawsuit filed by more than 100 bar owners challenging the authority of the governor to shut down their operations, especially while allowing the serving of alcohol to patrons dining at restaurants.
A provision in a court ruling this week on bars and alcohol sales could end up curtailing business at some restaurants, which could then lead them to close.
In her decision Tuesday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates upheld Gov. Doug Ducey’s actions in keeping bars closed while allowing restaurants to remain open and serve alcohol. She said those actions were within Ducey’s broad authority to protect public health.
In her decision Tuesday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates upheld the actions by Gov. Doug Ducey in keeping bars closed while allowing restaurants to remain open and continue to serve alcohol. She said that was within his authority to protect public health.
But Gates did not look so kindly on a decision by the governor to tell his own Department of Liquor Licenses and Control to look the other way when restaurants decided to sell beer, wine and liquor out the front door, a move that was designed to help the financially struggling businesses.
That directive, the judge said, hardly fits within the actions Ducey is permitted to take in emergencies. And she said Ducey’s decision to suspend enforcement of a liquor law “impermissibly stretches” the governor’s power. What remains to be seen is whether the governor will rescind that part of his order. “We are reviewing the ruling,” said Ducey press aide Patrick Ptak.
But any move in that direction will get opposition from the Arizona Restaurant Association.
In March, Ducey used the emergency powers he had to close all bars and restaurants to patrons. But he agreed to pleas from the restaurant owners to allow them to continue to sell beer, wine and alcoholic beverages to customers who also were getting food to go. Only thing is, such off-premises sales are illegal under state law. So Ducey instructed agents for the liquor department to simply turn a blind eye to the violations.
Dan Bogert, chief operating officer of the restaurant group, said that move provided a “key lifeline” to restaurants. “They are helping to keep those places in business and employees employed,” he said. Since that time, Ducey has loosened the restrictions — at least on restaurants. They can provide dine-in services, but only at 50% of capacity. Bars remain closed unless they agree to operate under additional restrictions.
But the directive to liquor agents to ignore the violations by restaurants of law banning off-premises sales remains. Ptak said the directive was, and is,j ustified, calling it one of the “tough decisions” that the governor has had to make. “This has been a way for many establishments to maintain their operations while continuing to prioritize public health,” he said.
The only reason any of this came to the attention of Gates is the lawsuit filed by more than 100 bar owners challenging the authority of the governor to shut down their operations, especially while allowing the serving of alcohol to patrons dining at restaurants.
ADVOCACY: Proposition 208. Get the FACTS!
The vast majority of funding for this initiative is from out-of-state interests and will raise income taxes on individuals and small businesses
Few Pro-Proposition 208 contributions from individual Arizona donors
See Prop 208 Facts Below
According to the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the vast majority of funding for an initiative campaign to raise income taxes on individuals and small businesses comes from out-of-state unions and interest groups, according to a review of the campaign’s finance records.
Since January, InvestInEd, the group backing Proposition 208, has raised more than $4.6 million, however only $31,143 have come from individual contributions made by Arizonans. The remaining 99.3 percent has come from Portland, Oregon-based Stand for Children, the Arizona Education Association, and other special interest groups.
“Arizona’s initiative process was never intended to be a petri dish for experimental policy cooked up by wealthy special interests from around the country,” Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said in June.
In May, InvestInEd described themselves as “A grassroots movement to restore K-12 education funding and power our economic recovery.”
However, the group’s campaign finance records belie the claims of the initiative’s supporters that the campaign enjoys deep Arizona-based grassroots support.
Nearly all pro-Prop. 208 funding coming from special interests
Click here for full article
What You Need to Know
Arizona Proposition 208, the Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and Schools Initiative, is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020.
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to:
* enact a 3.50% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax (4.50% in 2020), on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing) and
* distribute the revenue from the 3.50% income tax to teacher and classroom support staff salaries, teacher mentoring and retention programs, career and technical education programs, and the Arizona Teachers Academy.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thus keeping the highest income tax rate at 4.50% (in 2020) on income above $159,000 (single filing) or $318,000 (joint filing).
Overview
How would the ballot initiative increase income taxes?The ballot initiative would enact a 3.50% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax, on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing).[1]
As of 2020, the highest income tax in Arizona was 4.50%, which was levied on income above $159,000 (single filing) or $318,000 (joint filing). Based on the existing income tax rates, the ballot initiative would have the effect of increasing the tax rate from 3.50% to 8.00% on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing).[1]
How would the tax revenue be distributed?The ballot initiative would require that revenue from the 3.50% income tax be placed in the Student Support and Safety Fund (SSSF), which would be distributed as follows:[1]
- 50% as grants to school districts, charter schools, and state schools for the deaf and blind—in proportion to the weighted student count—to hire teachers and classroom support personnel and increase base compensation for teachers and classroom support personnel;
- 25% as grants to school districts, charter schools, and state schools for the deaf and blind—in proportion to the weighted student count—to hire student support services personnel and increasing base compensation for student support services personnel;
- 10% as grants to school districts, charter schools, and state schools for the deaf and blind—in proportion to the weighted student count—to provide mentoring and retention programming for new classroom teachers;
- 12% to the Career Training and Workforce Fund, which would provide multi-year grants to school districts, charter schools, and career technical districts for career and technical programs for grades 9-12, college-level educational opportunities, academic acceleration programs, tutoring, mentoring, counseling, mental health services for high school students, and hiring school counselors; and
- 3% to the Arizona Teachers Academy Fund, which was created to provide incentives and mentoring for students to become teachers and teach within the public school system.
Landlords sue, say Ducey lacks authority to stop evictions
According to the Arizona Capitol Times Landlords and mobile home park owners from around the state are asking the Arizona Supreme Court to void an executive order by Gov. Doug Ducey blocking evictions of tenants who do not pay their rent.
The lawsuit claims the governor lacks the constitutional authority to tell constables around the state not to process eviction orders, even those issued legally by judges. It also contends that the gubernatorial directive is violating both the property rights of landowners as well as their right to enter into contracts.
In seeking review, the lawsuit acknowledges that the governor can exercise certain powers in a public health emergency. But attorney Kory Langhofer, who prepared the legal filing, said that Ducey, in unilaterally barring landlords from enforcing the terms of lawful lease agreements, created “an indefinite economic welfare and redistribution program, rather than a public health measure to contain the COVID-19 contagion.”
According to the Arizona Capitol Times Landlords and mobile home park owners from around the state are asking the Arizona Supreme Court to void an executive order by Gov. Doug Ducey blocking evictions of tenants who do not pay their rent.
The lawsuit claims the governor lacks the constitutional authority to tell constables around the state not to process eviction orders, even those issued legally by judges. It also contends that the gubernatorial directive is violating both the property rights of landowners as well as their right to enter into contracts.
In seeking review, the lawsuit acknowledges that the governor can exercise certain powers in a public health emergency. But attorney Kory Langhofer, who prepared the legal filing, said that Ducey, in unilaterally barring landlords from enforcing the terms of lawful lease agreements, created “an indefinite economic welfare and redistribution program, rather than a public health measure to contain the COVID-19 contagion.”
PPP Loans helped nearly 1,500 local businesses
A new Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce report showed almost 1,500 small businesses in the Northwest Valley have received $155 million in PPP loan assistance.
Based the Chamber’s latest data, the PPP loans helped to retain 6,879 workers in the region (El Mirage, Sun City, Sun City West, Surprise, Waddell and Youngtown.) However, several small businesses in Surprise and surrounding areas are still suffering from the COVID-19 slowdown and waiting for Congress to act on additional bailout money.
“When the previous bailout programs were rolled out there was much confusion and turbulence, and small businesses did not initially fair well,” Chamber President and CEO Raoul Sada said. “The Chamber wants to do its part, making sure that does not happen again, and we are lobbying Capitol Hill for a packages that favor small businesses.”
Key Points:
•The SBA has just released a massive trove of data on PPP loans. This was a significant step forward in transparency by the government, prior to this the SBA resisted requests to share the recipients of the funds. This is why it is so important for the Chamber to hold government officials accountable, and for us to demand transparency at all levels of government (local, state and federal!)
•More than 81,000 Arizona businesses and nonprofits have received forgivable loans through the federal government's Paycheck Protection Program totaling $8.6 billion, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration.
•The Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to avert mass layoffs during the Covid-19 pandemic.
•PPP loans are not made by SBA. PPP loans are made by lending institutions and then guaranteed by SBA.
•According to the data, 58 businesses in Arizona received between $5 and $10 million, the maximum amount allowed under the program. But the vast majority of loans, approximately 86%, are valued under $150,000.
•Close to 1500 small businesses received PPP loans in the six cities that make up the Chambers service territory. The amount of cash infused into our local economy was over $154 million dollars! Based on application data, the loans help to retain 6,879 workers in our region.
•Approximately 42 businesses were non-profits (2.8% of the recipients)
Based the Chamber’s latest data, the PPP loans helped to retain 6,879 workers in the region (El Mirage, Sun City, Sun City West, Surprise, Waddell and Youngtown.) However, several small businesses in Surprise and surrounding areas are still suffering from the COVID-19 slowdown and waiting for Congress to act on additional bailout money.
“When the previous bailout programs were rolled out there was much confusion and turbulence, and small businesses did not initially fair well,” Chamber President and CEO Raoul Sada said. “The Chamber wants to do its part, making sure that does not happen again, and we are lobbying Capitol Hill for a packages that favor small businesses.”
Key Points:
•The SBA has just released a massive trove of data on PPP loans. This was a significant step forward in transparency by the government, prior to this the SBA resisted requests to share the recipients of the funds. This is why it is so important for the Chamber to hold government officials accountable, and for us to demand transparency at all levels of government (local, state and federal!)
•More than 81,000 Arizona businesses and nonprofits have received forgivable loans through the federal government's Paycheck Protection Program totaling $8.6 billion, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration.
•The Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to avert mass layoffs during the Covid-19 pandemic.
•PPP loans are not made by SBA. PPP loans are made by lending institutions and then guaranteed by SBA.
•According to the data, 58 businesses in Arizona received between $5 and $10 million, the maximum amount allowed under the program. But the vast majority of loans, approximately 86%, are valued under $150,000.
•Close to 1500 small businesses received PPP loans in the six cities that make up the Chambers service territory. The amount of cash infused into our local economy was over $154 million dollars! Based on application data, the loans help to retain 6,879 workers in our region.
•Approximately 42 businesses were non-profits (2.8% of the recipients)
Surprise Independent News Coverage
|
|
See What Businesses are Open and Their COVID-19 Safeguards Based on a self -reported survey, as on 05/11/2020. Information is subject to change without notice. The collection and dissemination of the data was a combined effort between the City of Surprise and the Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce. ShopSurprise Receive Special Deals, Promotions and Community Messages from Local Merchants, and your Chamber of Commerce. All messages are sent Directly to Your Phone! Get advance notice of new restaurants, grand openings, community events and more. It's FREE! Enroll Now |
|
|
Chamber’s NW Valley COVID-19 Consumer Survey Results Are In
Survey Results Make the Paper-Click Here to Read the Article Consumers, not the government, will ultimately decide when the economy will open—that is why it is important for citizens and businesses to know what people are thinking. Please share your comments on our Facebook page! Government leaders and public health officials will make decisions, and issue guidance on when we return to work, but truly regaining some semblance of normalcy will be determined by how people feel and what motivates them to act or not act. The Chambers recent survey sheds more light about what consumers are thinking in the NW Valley . Share your comments on our Facebook page Take Our 1-Minute Survey |
Business COVID-19 Survey Results
Survey Makes Front Page of Surprise Independent- Read the Story
CEOs across the globe are coming to terms with the reality that business will be anything but normal over the coming months as the impact of the coronavirus pandemic continues to escalate.
But while revenues are set to suffer a short-term hit, the majority of leaders remain confident that their companies will be back on solid footing within the year, according to a new study on the business impact of the outbreak of COVID-19.
The survey results found that 82% of business leaders expect declines in revenues over the next six months, but more than half (54%) anticipate revenues will be back to normal in a year’s time. And 61% of CEOs expect their total fixed investments to remain unchanged year on year.
How Business Owners are Responding
Among the industries seeing the greatest impact from the fallout are hospitality and travel (89%), education (87%) and media and entertainment (80%). Meanwhile, production firms in agriculture, factories, mines and utilities reported some uptick in revenues.
Nevertheless, business leaders across the board (95%) said they’re taking new measures curb the impact of the virus. That includes communicating more regularly with employees (68%), adopting new health and safety procedures (67%), cancelling major events (64%) and halting business travel (53%).
Meanwhile, other respondents, when asked for their advice for business leaders, recommended the following:
Citation: The Survey was conducted by YPO a global leadership community of more than 29,000 chief executives in 130 countries. Full Press Release
Survey Makes Front Page of Surprise Independent- Read the Story
CEOs across the globe are coming to terms with the reality that business will be anything but normal over the coming months as the impact of the coronavirus pandemic continues to escalate.
But while revenues are set to suffer a short-term hit, the majority of leaders remain confident that their companies will be back on solid footing within the year, according to a new study on the business impact of the outbreak of COVID-19.
The survey results found that 82% of business leaders expect declines in revenues over the next six months, but more than half (54%) anticipate revenues will be back to normal in a year’s time. And 61% of CEOs expect their total fixed investments to remain unchanged year on year.
How Business Owners are Responding
Among the industries seeing the greatest impact from the fallout are hospitality and travel (89%), education (87%) and media and entertainment (80%). Meanwhile, production firms in agriculture, factories, mines and utilities reported some uptick in revenues.
Nevertheless, business leaders across the board (95%) said they’re taking new measures curb the impact of the virus. That includes communicating more regularly with employees (68%), adopting new health and safety procedures (67%), cancelling major events (64%) and halting business travel (53%).
Meanwhile, other respondents, when asked for their advice for business leaders, recommended the following:
- Focus on the facts
- Communicate regularly with employees and stakeholders/customers
- Stabilize supply chains
- Make short-term and long-term plans
Citation: The Survey was conducted by YPO a global leadership community of more than 29,000 chief executives in 130 countries. Full Press Release
USMCA AGREEMENT IS A WIN FOR THE NORTH WEST VALLEY
By any measure, the push to get the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) passed — which preserves and strengthens our economic ties with our neighbors and top two export markets — was a three-year-long process. And it did not happen by accident.
The U.S. Chamber, the Surprise Regional Chamber as well thousands of chambers from around the country put the full weight of our alliances behind this historic effort. A special thank you to all local businesses in our region who contacted their elected officials and encouraged them to support the agreement. The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is expected to usher tangible benefits for the NW Valley including agriculture, technology, manufacturing, and other business sectors, industry analysts say.
Here’s a brief overview of what’s in it:
- Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).
- Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts must be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico agreed to pass new labor laws to give greater protection to workers, including migrants and women. Most notably, these laws are supposed to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize.
- US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, a big issue for Trump.
- Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, such as prohibiting duties on things like music and ebooks, and protections for internet companies, so they’re not liable for content their users produce.
- Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year sunset clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after 16 years. The deal is also subject to review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.
First-Ever Scorecard Released
Who Made the List? Our first-ever scorecard evaluates the votes of each state senator and representative and represents the positions of the West Valley Chamber Alliance that were communicated to our state lawmakers throughout the 2019 Regular Session. The scorecard helps the business community know where their elected officials stand on issues that affect us all. Click Here for Full Report
The Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce (Districts 13, 21 and 22) would like to recognize Rick Gray, Frank Carroll, Tim Dunn and Joanne Osborne for having 100% scores in support of pro-business policies.
As a Chamber, we commend those elected leaders with scores above 80% and recognize them as Free Enterprise Champions for recognizing the vital role businesses play and supporting those businesses through common sense, pro-business, and growth-oriented public policy. All elected officials in Districts 13, 21 and 22 earned the Free Enterprise Champion designation which included Rick Gray, Ben Toma, Frank Carroll, Kevin Payne, Tony Rivera, David Livingston, Tim Dunn, Joanne Osborne and Sine Kerr.
Chamber1
TAKE THE SURVEY NOW
2020 Business Climate Census Survey
Many in our business community are experiencing both challenges and successes as our economy grows. As we work to secure the NW Valley's future, it is crucial that the Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce understand what issues are most important to businesses. The purpose of the Business Climate Survey is to track trends and issues affecting businesses and to inform elected officials about the issues and concerns of the local business community.
Click Here Now, To Take Our Annual Business Climate Survey
2020 Business Climate Census Survey
Many in our business community are experiencing both challenges and successes as our economy grows. As we work to secure the NW Valley's future, it is crucial that the Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce understand what issues are most important to businesses. The purpose of the Business Climate Survey is to track trends and issues affecting businesses and to inform elected officials about the issues and concerns of the local business community.
Click Here Now, To Take Our Annual Business Climate Survey
|
|
|