CLOSING THE LOOPHOLE: ARIZONA ADDS PROMPT PAY PROTECTIONS TO REVITALIZATION DISTRICTS
Arizona contractors operating in public and quasi-public sectors sometimes rely on Prompt Pay statutes to help maintain cash flow. However, a statutory loophole created risk for civil and infrastructure contractors when working for Revitalization Districts—special taxing entities utilized by municipalities to help finance roads, utilities, drainage systems, and other public infrastructure needs.
When Revitalization Districts faced internal funding delays or bureaucratic standstills, contractors could find themselves stuck between slow or no payment and having to self-finance and continue performance, under the threat of default or claims from higher tiers. That risk was significantly reduced on June 22, 2026, when the Governor signed Senate Bill 1189 into law. Protections of Arizona Prompt Pay Statutes are now available for Revitalization District projects.
Prime contractors now have statutory rights to suspend or entirely terminate work if a Revitalization District fails to issue timely payments, provided the contractor delivers a formal seven-day written notice. Subcontractors receive parallel protections, also with required written notice. This added protection does not necessarily trump your contract requirements, which may still be enforceable depending on your situation.
Also under these statutory changes, contractors cannot be deemed in breach of contract for executing a lawful work stoppage. There is also a provision allowing a prevailing party to recover attorneys fees for successful enforcement.
Moving forward, contractors bidding on Arizona infrastructure projects funded by local taxing districts can proceed knowing that their right to timely payment is now better protected.
Roads & Bridges | Some Conditions Apply
SOME CONDITIONS APPLY | The scope of insurance policy coverage and what the terms dictate
At some time or another, many have tried […]
Roads & Bridges | Contract Termination
CONTRACT TERMINATION | An unpredictable case teaches hard lessons to each party involved
Court decisions are “opinions.” There are majority and dissenting (disagreeing) […]
Roads & Bridges | Good Faith and Fair Dealing
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING | How Do You Prove a Party Has Failed to Act Based Upon an Ulterior Motive?
The duty […]
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
Roads & Bridges | All According to Plan
ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN | Exact Measurements Go a Long Way
In December 2013, a contractor agreed to replace four bridges for the […]
Roads & Bridges | Connecting the Dots
CONNECTING THE DOTS | Showing Causation in Contracting Cases is Critical
In this asphalt case, the prime contractor agreed to perform a $13 […]
Roads & Bridges | Liquidated Damages
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES | Penalties and What is Unenforceable
Liquidated damages typically flow from delays, but they are not always solidly enforced.
In June 2017, […]
Roads& Bridges | Warranty Provisions
WARRANTY PROVISIONS | Contracts must be interpreted thoroughly to avoid absurd results
You are responsible for things within your control. Be careful if […]
Roads& Bridges | The Agreed Price
THE AGREED PRICE | This case stands as a warning about pay-if-paid clause
History cannot be rewritten and a bad, but legal, […]









