CAUCUS CALENDAR - Arizona Legislature



ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Forty-ninth Legislature - First Regular Session

MAJORITY CAUCUS CALENDAR

May 11, 2009

Upon Recess/Adjournment of Floor

* Pending Rules Action

Bill Number Short Title Committee Date Action

Committee on Commerce

Analyst: Dianna Clay O’Dell Assistant: Brooke Olguin Intern: Maureen Howell

HB 2611* motion picture tax incentives

SPONSOR: WEIERS J COM 3/4 DP (4-2-0-2-0)

Committee on Government

Analyst: Michelle Hindman Assistant: Zach Tretton Intern: Laurel Johnson

HB 2570 fire districts; boundaries; merger; consolidation

SPONSOR: PRATT GOV 3/3 DPA (8-0-0-1-0)

Committee on Judiciary

Analyst: Kristine Stoddard Intern: Robert Stout

HB 2172 charity game ticket games.

SPONSOR: ANTENORI JUD 3/5 DPA (6-1-0-1-0)

HB 2125 permissible raffles; clubs

SPONSOR: LESKO JUD 2/12 DP (7-1-0-0-0)

HB 2532 prohibited possessors; persistently, acutely disabled

SPONSOR: ASH JUD 3/5 DPA (8-0-0-0-0)

HB 2313* process servers; criminal liability

(JUD S/E: process servers; rights)

SPONSOR: DRIGGS JUD 3/5 DPA/SE (8-0-0-0-0)

HB 2551* criminal damage; classification

SPONSOR: TOVAR JUD 2/26 DP (8-0-0-0-0)

Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety

Analyst: Thomas Adkins Intern: Scott Handler

HCM 2009 opposing federal firearms legislation

SPONSOR: BURGES MAPS 4/29 DP (5-0-0-3-0)

HB 2449* mandatory fingerprinting; central state repository

(JUD S/E: fingerprinting; arrest; procedures)

SPONSOR: WEIERS JP MAPS 2/25 DPA/SE (5-2-0-1-0)

JUD 3/5 DPA/SE (8-0-0-0-0)

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Analyst: Ingrid Garvey Intern: Laureen Stadle

HB 2392 technical correction; vehicles and loads

(TI S/E: vehicles and loads)

SPONSOR: BIGGS TI 3/5 DPA/SE (8-0-0-0-0)

Committee on Ways and Means

Analyst: Kitty Decker Intern: Matt Stone

HB 2312 small special districts; financial review

SPONSOR: DRIGGS WM 2/9 DP (5-0-0-3-0)

HB 2378 construction contracting; cities; rates

SPONSOR: MURPHY WM 2/16 DP (6-1-0-1-0)

GOV 2/24 DPA (9-0-0-0-0)

HB 2466* school districts; maximum tax rate

SPONSOR: LESKO WM 2/16 DP (4-3-0-1-0)

House of Representatives

HB 2125

permissible raffles; clubs

Sponsor: Representative Lesko

|DP |Committee on Judiciary |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2125 permits booster clubs, civic clubs, and political clubs or committees to conduct raffles.

History

In Arizona, gambling falls into legalized and regulated categories defined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 13, Chapter 33. Amusement gambling, in which players actively compete for prizes of no or little monetary significance, and social gambling, in which players compete with equal standing and no other party receives winnings, are not unlawful, but other forms of gambling fall under strict regulation. These regulated forms of gambling include games of chance such as lotteries, raffles, and games such as bingo.

According to A.R.S. § 13-3302, raffles may be conducted by certain historical societies and tax-exempt non-profit organizations, such as labor organizations, fraternal lodges, and religious organizations, within certain restrictions. This tax-exempt status often imposes restrictions, such as requiring that the organization’s earnings not benefit private individuals or shareholders, or requiring that the organization not carry propaganda or attempt to influence legislation.

In order to conduct raffles, the organization must have existed continuously for five years, only members of the organization may participate in the administration and execution of the raffle, and no person involved with the organization may benefit directly or indirectly from the raffle except through normal competition and winnings. Direct benefit includes simple monetary reward, whereas indirect benefit encompasses gains such as increased sales of food or drink when the raffle is held at a charging establishment with which a member is affiliated.

Provisions

• Permits booster clubs, civic clubs, and political clubs or committees to conduct raffles, provided the following conditions are met:

➢ The club or committee exists for pleasure, recreation, or other nonprofit purpose, and no part of the club or committee’s net earnings personally benefits any member, director, officer, employee, or agent of the club or committee.

➢ No member, director, officer, employee, or agent of the club or committee may receive direct or indirect pecuniary benefit other than being able to participate on a basis equal to other participants.

➢ No person other than a member of the sponsoring club or committee may participate in the management, sales, or operation of the raffle.

➢ Annual raffle benefit to the club may not exceed ten thousand dollars.

• Makes technical and conforming changes.

House of Representatives

HB 2172

charity game ticket games.

Sponsor: Representative Antenori

|DPA |Committee on Judiciary |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2172 creates an additional classification of license for charity game tickets.

History

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 5, Chapter 4 requires the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) to regulate and license bingo games. Applicants for a bingo license are must have been in existence for two years prior to making an application for a license. Applicants must submit the initial license application, the local governing body fee and the license fee (all of which vary depending on classification) to their local governing body. The applicant must designate one or two managers, one proceeds coordinator, one supervisor, and at least one assistant, none of whom may serve in more than one position. The local governing body must hold a hearing on each application within 45 days of receipt of the application. Following the hearing, the local governing body must recommend approval or disapproval and forward the application to the ADOR. Licenses are valid for one year; however, a 30-day grace period must be allowed during which the license may be renewed if a late filing penalty equal to the license fee is submitted in addition to the actual license fee. If a bingo license is revoked, the revocation period persists five years from the date of revocation. Licensees cannot transfer licenses to another person and ADOR cannot issue more than one license to an applicant or licensee.

A licensee must not conduct or operate more than five occasions of bingo during any calendar week; however, ADOR may authorize one special bonus game which can be played at weekly consecutive occasions with a quarterly prize limit of $12,000. For regular individual bingo games, a prize no greater than $1000 can be offered and the total amount of prizes for each occasion cannot exceed $3000. No more than 12 hours of bingo can be conducted in any building or on any premises during any calendar day.

According to A.R.S. § 5-413, there are three classifications of bingo licenses which are distinguished by the permitted amount of annual gross receipts:

➢ Class A licenses – may be issued to a person to conduct bingo games for which the gross receipts do not exceed $15,600. A Class A must not be issued to a person who holds a club license, which includes but is not limited to, a golf club with a liquor license and more than 50 members. Class A licensees have a reporting period of one year.

➢ Class B licenses – may be issued to a qualified organization to conduct bingo games for which the gross receipts do not exceed $300,000. Class B licensees have four reporting periods.

➢ Class C licenses – may be issued to a qualified organization to conduct bingo games for which the gross receipts exceed $300,000. Class C licensees have 12 reporting periods.

Qualified organization is defined as a homeowners’ association, any bona fide charitable, fraternal, religious, social, veterans’ or volunteer firefighters’ organization, nonprofit ambulance service, or any chartered branch or lodge or chapter of such national or state organization that operates without profit to its members and may not include more than one identified auxiliary of any such organization.

Provisions

• Creates a Class D charity game ticket license for the conduct of charity game tickets by qualified organizations that operate with a Class B or Class C bingo license or any charitable organization that operates a private, members-only club.

• Requires Class D licensees to file 12 reports that coincide with each month of the term of the license.

• Allows ADOR to assess and collect fees for Class D licenses.

• Specifies that charity game tickets may be sold within a charitable organization’s private club but only at licensed bingo games during the authorized session times, no earlier than one hour before the start of the authorized session times and no later than one hour after the end of the authorized session times.

• Requires ADOR to adopt rules prescribing the qualifications and fees for manufacturers’ and distributors’ licenses and specifies that:

➢ A person that sells charity game tickets must obtain a distributor’s license; and

➢ Any manufacturer of charity game tickets that sells to distributors must obtain a manufacturer’s license.

• Specifies that:

➢ Licensed manufacturers must sell charity game tickets only to licensed distributors;

➢ Licensed distributors must purchase charity game tickets from only licensed manufacturers; and

➢ Licensed organizations must purchase charity game tickets only from licensed distributors.

• Assigns the following limits on charity game tickets and specifies that the prizes awarded for charity game ticket games are not subject to the bingo price limits:

➢ $1 – the maximum price for an individual charity game ticket

➢ $500 – the maximum prize for an individual charity game ticket

➢ 4000 – the maximum number of charity game tickets in a set or deal

• Specifies that all expenses for charity game tickets, except cash prizes in the amount of $250 or less, must be withdrawn from the licensee’s special account.

• Stipulates that no charity game tickets may be sold in this state that do not conform to the standards for opacity, randomization, minimum information, winner protection, color and cutting for charity game tickets established by a recognized gaming regulators’ association selected by the licensing authority.

• Raises the ceiling on gross receipts for Class A licensees from $15,600 to $46,800.

• Defines charity game ticket, deal, distributor, and manufacturer.

• Makes various technical and conforming changes, including adding charity game tickets to the numerous statutes governing bingo games.

Amendments

Committee on Judiciary

• Clarifies that charity game ticket excludes games which are played with a mechanical, electronic, or video display or other facsimile of the paper card.

• Specifies that bingo event tickets are sold and played in conjunction with an authorized game of bingo.

• Specifies that charity game ticket formats must be authorized by the Department of Gaming, and that the Department of Gaming must not approve a charity game ticket format which would cause removal of gaming restrictions as specified in the Tribal-State Compacts, A.R.S § 5-601.02.

• Specifies that Class C bingo licenses may be issued to charitable organizations, and that such licenses apply to the sale of charity game tickets during bingo occasions.

• Removes the Class D charity game ticket license.

• Removes the authorization for the sale of charity game tickets within a private club.

House of Representatives

HB 2312

small special districts; financial review

Sponsor: Representative Driggs

|DP |Committee on Ways & Means |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2312 removes the requirement of biennial financial reviews for districts with a budget of less than $50,000, and makes new financial review requirements.

History

Laws 1989, chapter 180 mandates that audits are performed annually for special taxing districts (districts) with a budget of $1 million or more. Districts with budgets between $100,000 and $1 million will have a financial review annually. Any districts with budgets of less than $100,000 are subject to biennial financial reviews. The districts are free to choose auditors or agents selected by the Board of Supervisors to perform these reviews. The district has to submit a copy of the review or audit to the Board of Supervisors, and county Treasurer within 180 days. If a district fails to submit an audit or review they are subject to prosecution, and fines for bringing the case to action.

Districts that are exempt from this mandated audit and reviews are municipal improvement districts, county improvement districts, agricultural improvement districts, multi-county water conservation districts, ground water replenishment districts, and active management area water districts.

The biennial review required by a CPA firm typically costs the district between $3,500 - $10,000 thus requiring a significant portion of their budget to comply with these financial requirements. For some small districts, this amounts to over $100 per review per each transaction they conduct. This bill will retain the ability to do a financial review upon request.

Provisions

• Removes the requirement of a biennial financial review for a special taxing district with a budget of less than $50,000.

• Stipulates that a financial review will only be conducted by request of the county Board of Supervisors, or ten or more residents.

• Directs each district with a budget of $50,000 or less, to submit a financial review to the county Treasurer, and Board of Supervisors within 180 days after the request.

House of Representatives

HB 2313

process servers; criminal liability

Sponsor: Representative Driggs

|DPA/SE |Committee on Judiciary |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2313 adds private process servers performing official duties to the list of persons against whom assault is classified as aggravated assault and exempts private process servers from charges of criminal trespass for actions performed during the course of official duties.

Summary of the proposed strike-everything amendment

History

One of a constable’s primary duties is the service of process. Service of process entails delivery of legal notices, in person, to a particular party. Supreme Court rule provides that service of process not involving seizure of persons or property may be performed by persons other than constables if they have been properly appointed or registered. These persons, designated to be officers of the court, often serve in the employ of private business and are known as private process servers.

Provisions

• Adds private process servers performing official duties to the list of persons against whom assault is classified as aggravated assault.

• Specifies that private process servers are subject to the same rights and privileges afforded to sheriffs and constables while in the execution of duties pertaining to service of process.

House of Representatives

HB 2378

construction contracting; cities; rates

Sponsor: Representative Murphy

|DP |Committee on Ways and Means |

|DPA |Committee on Government |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2378 prohibits cities and towns from imposing a tax rate increase on construction contracting if these increases are higher than the majority of other city and town imposed tax rates.

History

Arizona is one of the few states that allow incorporated cities and towns to have a separate tax base for their Transaction Privilege (sales) Tax (TPT) collections. The municipalities operate under the Model City Tax Code (MCTC) and all proposed changes to the code are approved by the Municipal Tax Code Commission.

Each city can opt for what activities are taxable under the MCTC, however, if they choose to tax a particular activity, and then it must be done in accordance with the MCTC. This provides uniformity among the various cities while also retaining the right of individual cities and towns to determine the items taxed as well as the exemptions to be granted, thereby leaving the determination of the local sales tax base up to the individual city or town council. Cities can also determine their own rates for different taxable activities.

Currently, 25 cities have different rates for contracting activities and retail activities. Typically, any change in a tax rate for municipalities takes effect 60 days after a resolution is adopted. However, it is not unusual for a city to have a longer period of time before a tax is enacted.

HB 2378 will restrict the timing of municipal TPT rate increases related to construction activities.

Provisions

• Beginning October 1, 2009 cities or towns are prohibited from increasing the tax rate on construction contracting until 120 days after adoption if the tax rate increase is higher than the majority of city or town tax rates.

• Defines construction contracting.

Amendments

Committee on Government

• Strikes the definition of construction contracting from the bill.

House of Representatives

HB 2392

technical correction; vehicles and loads

Sponsor: Representative Biggs

|DPAS/E |Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2392 makes a technical correction.

The strike-everything amendment to HB 2392 allows heavy duty vehicles equipped with idle reduction technology (IRT) to exceed the gross per-axle or axle group weight limit by no more than four hundred pounds.

History

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 28-1100 specifies the maximum gross weights for an axle, tandem axle, five axles or more, and two or more consecutive axles that are allowed on state highways. Additionally § 28-110 sets forth exemptions and vehicle equipment specifications.

Under the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistant Program, an IRT is defined as the installation of a technology or device that:

➢ Is installed on a vehicle or at a location.

➢ Is designed to provide services to the vehicle or equipment that would otherwise require the operation of the main drive engine while the vehicle or equipment is temporarily parked or remains stationary.

➢ Reduces unnecessary idling of such equipment or vehicle.

Reduction in idling must also lower emissions. Over the past seven years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated idle reduction technologies and the EPA has verified several categories of idle reduction; electrified parking spaces, shore connection systems and alternative maritime power, auxiliary power units, fuel operated heaters, battery air conditioning systems and thermal storage systems.

Provisions

• Makes a technical change.

Provisions of the proposed strike-everything amendment

• Allows heavy duty vehicles equipped with an IRT to exceed the gross per-axle or axle group weight limit by no more than four hundred pounds or the weight of the IRT, whichever is less.

• Requires the heavy duty operator to prove by written certification the weight of the IRT if requested and to prove by demonstration or certification that the IRT is functional.

• Prescribes that heavy duty vehicle and idle reduction technology have the same meaning as found in 42 U.S.C. §16104(a).

Amendments

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

• The strike-everything amendment was adopted.

House of Representatives

HB 2449

mandatory fingerprinting; central state repository

Sponsor: Representative Weiers JP

|DPA/SE |Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety |

|DPA/SE |Committee on Judiciary |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2449 requires persons arrested for specified offenses to be fingerprinted prior to being released and requires the arresting authority to forward a report indicating that the person was fingerprinted to all courts involved.

Summary of the proposed strike-everything amendment to HB 2449

History

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 41-1750 requires the chief officers of criminal justice agencies of Arizona or its political subdivisions to provide fingerprints and specified personal information of persons arrested for a felony, domestic violence, sexual or DUI offense to the central state repository. This transfer of information to the central state repository, also known as the Arizona Computerized Criminal History, from law enforcement agencies must take place within ten days.

On the issuance and service of a summons, at the initial appearance or on the arraignment of a defendant charged with a felony, domestic violence, sexual or DUI offense, the court is required to order the defendant be fingerprinted by the appropriate law enforcement agency at a designated time and place.

For theft and DUI offenses, the court is required pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-607 to permanently affix the defendant’s fingerprint to a judgment of guilt and sentence document. This document is then made a permanent part of the public records of the court, and the recitations contained in the document are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the recitation.

Provisions

• Specifies that the required fingerprint of a defendant affixed to a judgment of guilt and sentence document be the right index fingerprint.

• Allows the clerk of the court to maintain only an electronic reproduction or image of a judgment of guilt and sentence document if the Supreme Court has authorized the clerk to maintain an electronic record.

• Prohibits a person arrested for a felony, domestic violence, sexual or DUI offense from being released until that person provides a right index fingerprint to the arresting agency.

• Requires the arresting agency to provide to the arrested person a mandatory fingerprint compliance form that includes instructions on reporting for ten-print fingerprinting, including available times and locations for reporting for ten-print fingerprinting.

• Specifies that the court clerk or other clerk staff, rather than the magistrate, files the complaint when a person has given a written promise to appear in court and fails to appear. The magistrate still issues the warrant of arrest.

• Requires the court, rather than the magistrate, to arraign a person arrested for failing to appear in court.

• Requires an arresting authority to take legible ten-print fingerprints of all persons arrested for a felony, domestic violence, sexual or DUI offense.

• Allows the arresting authority to transfer an arrestee to a booking agency for ten-print fingerprinting.

• Requires the arresting authority or booking agency to obtain a process control number and provide to the person fingerprinted a document that indicates proof of the fingerprinting and informs the person that the document must be presented to the court.

• Requires that a mandatory fingerprint compliance form contain the fact that ten-print fingerprints were obtained, the fact that a process number was obtained, any report number of the arresting authority, and instructions that the form is to be provided to the court at the person’s next court appearance.

• Requires an arresting authority or agency that took fingerprints to forward the fingerprints to DPS within ten days after the fingerprints were taken.

• Specifies that the court summons issued to a defendant charged with a felony, domestic violence, sexual or DUI offense must direct the defendant to provide ten-print fingerprints to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

• Specifies that if, at the initial appearance of a defendant charged with a felony, domestic violence, sexual or DUI offense, the defendant does not present a mandatory fingerprint compliance form to the court or the court has not received the process control number, the court shall order that the defendant be ten-print fingerprinted within 20 days at a designated time and place with the appropriate law enforcement agency.

• Allows the court, on its own motion, to remand a defendant into custody for fingerprinting if the defendant fails to comply with the order to be fingerprinted. The defendant, if eligible, must be released after being fingerprinted.

• Contains a delayed enactment date of January 1, 2010.

• Makes technical and conforming changes.

Amendments

Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety

• The strike-everything amendment was adopted.

Committee on Judiciary

• The strike-everything amendment was adopted.

House of Representatives

HB 2466

school districts; maximum tax rate

Sponsor: Representative Lesko

|dp |Committee on Ways and Means |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2466 establishes a maximum tax rate that school districts can impose on taxpayers.

History

The Tax Reform for Arizona Citizens Committee (TRACC) was established in 2002 and issued final recommendations in December 2003. The Committee was established to examine the current tax structure, with one of their duties being to study and make recommendations on the tax policies of this State and local jurisdictions, including counties, municipalities, school districts and special taxing districts and to assure that the policies are adequate, equitable, competitive and consistent with economic development strategies. One of the recommendations of this committee was a proposal to cap the primary property tax rate of any school district that has 50% or more of the homeowners at the 1% cap and the primary tax rate is 150% of the Qualifying Tax Rate (QTR) set by the Legislature.

This proposal will address some of the disparities that exist between school districts due to the allowance to budget for items outside their revenue control limit (RCL). School districts that are permitted to budget for these items impose higher primary property taxes than other school districts. Since the funding for these items outside the RCL comes from the primary property tax, without voter approval, it is also subsidized by the state two ways. First, the state subsidizes primary property taxes by paying for any homeowner taxes that exceed 1% of the value of their home. The second subsidy is the Homeowner’s Rebate program that currently pays for 39% of the homeowner’s primary school tax rate.

For FY 2009, the QTR was set by the Legislature at $2.9244 for unified districts and $1.4622 for non-unified districts. If this proposal were in place this year, it would apply first to any school district where fifty percent of their homeowner property is at the 1% cap and their primary property school tax rate exceeds $4.3866 (unified district) or $2.1933 (non-unified district). It will currently affect 10 school districts: Ash Creek Elementary, Bowie Unified, Combs Elementary, Eloy Elementary, Hayden-Winkelman Unified, McNeal Elementary, Red Rock Elementary, San Simon Unified, Santa Cruz Valley Union, Superior Unified.

The Legislature passed this proposal in 2005 and 2006; both bills were vetoed by Governor Napolitano.

This bill could result in potential cost savings to the State General Fund of approximately $800,000 by reducing expenditures for additional state aid programs.

Provisions

• Prohibits the governing board of a common school district, a high school district or a unified school district to fix, levy or assess a primary property tax rate that is higher than the current year’s rate if the district meets the following criteria:

• The total primary property taxes levied for all taxing jurisdictions results in at least 50% of the homeowners exceeding the 1% constitutional cap.

• The primary property tax rate exceeds 150% of the QTR.

• Requires the Property Tax Oversight Commission (PTOC) to determine which school districts are affected and to notify those districts by December 31. The PTOC will also notify the county school superintendent and the county board of supervisors.

House of Representatives

HB 2532

prohibited possessors; persistently, acutely disabled

Sponsor: Representatives Ash

|DPA |Committee on Judiciary |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2532 extends certain restrictions which apply to persons that are a danger to self or others to additionally apply to persons that are persistently or acutely disabled, and establishes a process by which such persons may request to have their right to possess a firearm restored.

History

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 36-501 provides definitions for the terms danger to others, danger to self, and persistently or acutely disabled. Danger to others means a mental disorder that impairs judgment to such a degree that the need for treatment is not understood by the person and behavior while untreated can reasonably be expected to result in serious harm. Danger to self means a mental disorder which when untreated causes behavior constituting a serious risk of self-harm, such as attempted suicide, or other serious harm or illness to the person, excluding simple inability for the person to provide for the person’s own physical needs. Persistently or acutely disabled means a severe mental disorder that is treatable, but which substantially impairs informed decision-making regarding treatment and which, if not treated, has a substantial probability of significantly impairing judgment, reason, behavior, or capacity to recognize reality.

Persons who are a danger to self or others are currently included in the class of prohibited possessors, the class of persons not permitted to be agency licensees, and the class of persons whose personal information must be reported to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) when a court order for treatment is entered.

Provisions

• Adds persistently or acutely disabled persons to the class of prohibited possessors, the class of persons not permitted to be agency licensees, and the class of persons whose personal information must be reported to DPS when a court order for treatment is entered.

• Establishes a hearing process by which persons previously found to be persistently or acutely disabled or found to be dangerous to self or others who were subject to a court treatment order may request to have their right to possess a firearm restored by reason of no longer suffering from that mental disorder.

• Specifies that persons who are a danger to self or others or persistently or acutely disabled remain in the class of prohibited possessors unless their right to possess a firearm has been restored, rather than remaining in that class only until court order terminates their court-ordered treatment.

• Removes the requirement that the court report to DPS the date of termination of court-ordered treatment of a person found to be a danger to self or others.

• Makes technical and conforming changes.

Amendments

Judiciary

• Specifies that a judicial finding to restore a person’s right to possess a firearm by reason that the person no longer suffers from the mental disorder does not apply to and has no effect on any other rights or benefits of the person.

House of Representatives

HB 2551

criminal damage; classification

Sponsor: Representative Tovar

|DP |Committee on Judiciary |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2551 elevates the crime of criminal damage in an amount of $250 or less to a Class 1 misdemeanor.

History

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 13-1602 specifies that criminal damage is recklessly defacing or damaging another’s property, tampering with another’s property to impair its function or value, tampering with the property of a utility, depriving livestock of water via placement of a vehicle, or leaving a message or mark on another’s property without permission.

The classification of criminal damage varies according to the monetary damage caused:

• Criminal damage in an amount of $10,000 or more, or recklessly impairing the function of a utility, is a Class 4 felony.

• Criminal damage in an amount of $2,000 or more but less than $10,000 is a Class 5 felony.

• Criminal damage in an amount of more than $250 but less than $2,000 is a Class 6 felony.

• Any other criminal damage is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Provisions

• Elevates the lowest classification of criminal damage to a Class 1 misdemeanor.

House of Representatives

HB 2570

fire districts; boundaries; merger; consolidation

Sponsor: Representative Pratt

|DPA |Committee on Government |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2570 allows a fire district to merge or consolidate by a unanimous consent of the governing bodies of the fire districts or by holding an election.

History

Fire Districts – General

Counties are not statutorily authorized to provide fire or emergency medical services; therefore they must seek fire protection and medical services from other sources. Some form fire districts and other counties or county islands contract with a private provider through community associations. Fire districts are political subdivisions of the state that are responsible for providing fire services within a specified area and are funded by self-taxation of the residents and businesses under the jurisdiction of the fire district.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 48-805 allows the governing body of a fire district to approve a change to the district’s name with the approval of two of the three members of a three member board, four of the five members of a five member board and five of the seven members of a seven member board. Upon changing a fire district’s name, the governing board must provide written notice to the county board of supervisors.

Current statute allows for any property owner whose land is within a county that contains a fire district – and if that land is contiguous to the boundaries of the fire district – to request in writing that the governing body of the fire district amend the district boundaries to include their property. However, this request must be made before the county board of supervisors orders the creation of a proposed new fire district or the governing body orders the annexation for which petitions are being circulated. If the governing body determines that the request for inclusion will benefit both the district and the property owner, the boundary change may be made by order of the governing body. A petition and impact statement is not required for inclusion into a fire district, nor is approval of the city or town in which the inquiring property resides (A.R.S. § 48-262).

Fire Districts – Mergers

Fire districts are allowed by statute to merge with or without an election. Prior to considering adoption of a resolution calling for a fire district merger, the governing body of each fire district must obtain written consent to the merger from any single taxpayer residing within each of the affected districts who owns 30% or more of the net assessed valuation of the district. If written consent is not obtained, then a merger can only be accomplished by means of an election. A.R.S. § 48-820 prescribes the election procedure required to merge fire districts, which includes a requirement that the governing bodies of the affected fire districts hold a public hearing at which comments of the Board of Supervisors are considered and a three-fourths vote of the governing body is required to pass a resolution stating that a merger will promote the public health, comfort, convenience, necessity or welfare.

Merger without an election is possible only when written consent has been obtained from any single taxpayer residing within each of the affected districts who owns 30% or more of the net assessed valuation of the district and when the resolution calling for consideration of a fire district merger and a resolution following a public hearing and calling for a merger are both approved by a unanimous vote of the governing body of each fire district affected by the proposed merger.

Fire Districts – Consolidation

There are also two methods of consolidating fire districts, one involving an election and one without. An election for consolidation is called by the county board of supervisors upon receipt of a resolution for consolidation from the requesting fire district, which is held on the general election date and may only be called every two years. Consolidation without an election is possible only when written consent has been obtained from any single taxpayer residing within each of the affected districts who owns 30% or more of the net assessed valuation of the district, and when each vote required by statute for consolidation is approved by a unanimous vote of the governing body of each fire district affected by the proposed consolidation (A.R.S. § 48-822).

The statutory procedures for fire district mergers and consolidations are essentially the same. The difference is that with a fire district merger, the governing board is comprised of members from each fire district that is a party to the merger, while the governing body of a consolidated fire district is the same governing body in place for the receiving district at the time consolidation is requested. In other words, the governing body of the fire district requesting consolidation is eliminated.

Provisions

Fire Districts – General

• Allows the governing board of a fire district to place a question on the ballot at a general election to change the district’s name.

• Requires the permission – by ordinance or resolution – of the incorporated city or town in which a single parcel requesting inclusion into a fire district is located before the governing body of a fire district can approve a boundary change.

Fire Districts – Merger

• Allows the governing bodies of fire districts to choose to merge by unanimous resolution without an election or to choose to hold an election on the question of the merger.

• Stipulates that only a majority vote is required, rather than a three-fourths vote, to adopt a resolution that a proposed fire district merger will promote the public health, comfort, convenience, necessity or welfare.

• Clarifies that the adopted resolution regarding the fire district merger shall call for an election.

Fire Districts – Consolidation

• Allows the governing bodies of fire districts to choose to consolidate by unanimous resolution without an election or to choose to hold an election on the question of consolidation.

• Requires the clerk of each governing body of a fire district affected by a consolidation to mail a notice and copy of the resolution in support of the merger to the chairman of the board of supervisors in each county where the affected fire districts are located.

• Stipulates that the chairman of the board of supervisors shall order a review of the proposed consolidation and submit written comments to the governing body of each affected fire district within ten days of receiving the notice.

• Mandates that the governing body of the affected fire districts consider the comments of the board of supervisors at a public hearing.

• Stipulates that a majority vote is required to determine that the proposed consolidation promotes the public health, comfort, convenience, necessity or welfare and to approve the consolidated fire district impact statement.

• Requires the governing body of the district into which consolidation was requested to declare, by resolution, that the district is consolidated and that each affected district is joined upon approving the proposal for consolidation.

Miscellaneous

• Makes technical and conforming changes.

Amendments

Committee on Government

• Provides a technical change, striking the word merger and replacing it with consolidation in order to conform to statute.

House of Representatives

HB 2611

motion picture tax incentives

Sponsor: Representative Weiers J

|DP |Committee on Commerce |

|X |Committee on Ways and Means |

| |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HB 2611 transfers responsibility of the Motion Picture Production Tax Incentive Program from the Department of Commerce to the newly-established Arizona Film Office Advisory Council (Council). Makes changes to the tax credit yearly cap and the required percentage of Arizona residents employed by each company.

History

The Motion Picture Production Tax Incentive Program (MOPIC) was established by the Arizona Legislature in 2005 and placed under the regulatory authority of the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) in order to promote and stimulate the motion picture industry in Arizona. The MOPIC became effective on December 31, 2006 and is currently in effect through December 31, 2010.

Each company applying for the tax credits must employ a certain percentage of Arizona residents and is limited to the following caps on the tax credits (current statute):

|Tax Year |Arizona Residents |Cap Per Year |Cap Per Movie |

|2006 |25% |$30 M |- |

|2007 |35% |$40 M |$5 M |

|2008 |50% |$50 M |$7 M |

|2009 |50% |$60 M |$8 M |

|2010 and after |50% |$70 M |$9 M |

HB 2611 decreases the required percentage of Arizona residents employed by each company to 25% and increases the yearly tax credit cap amount to $100 million beginning January 1, 2009.

Provisions

Arizona Film Office Advisory Council

Members

• Establishes a 10-member Council in the Office of the Governor consisting of the following members appointed by the Governor:

➢ Four members associated with broad areas of film, digital media and motion picture making, production of television programs and commercial advertisements and related industries in Arizona.

➢ One member from a film, television, digital media or related industry union.

➢ One member who represents local film offices or local units of government.

➢ One member from a list of three or more nominees submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representative.

➢ One member from a list of three or more nominees submitted by the President of the Senate.

➢ Two residents of Arizona who are not active in film, television, digital media or related industries.

• Stipulates four year terms of office and staggers the initial terms. If a vacancy occurs on the Council other than by expiration of a term, the vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term.

• Mandates the Governor to designate one member of the Council to serve as chairperson.

• Allows the members of the Council to elect a vice-chairperson and additional officers as appropriate.

• Requires the Council to meet a minimum of three times per fiscal year and at additional times if the chairperson calls a meeting.

• States that Council members serve without compensation but may receive reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses and are subject to penalties relating to conflict of interest.

• Allocates $337,700 from the dollar amount of motion picture production tax incentive credits, subject to annual legislative authorization, to the Council for up to six full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. If the income tax credits terminate, resulting in the termination of FTEs and the Council’s hiring authorization, ADOC must provide additional staff support to the Council.

Duties

• Grants the Council permission to:

➢ Advise the Governor and the Legislature on how to promote and market Arizona’s locations, crews, facilities, technical production facilities and other services used by film, television, digital media and related industries.

➢ Encourage community and state film, digital media and television production industry participation in, and coordination with, state efforts to attract these as well as related industries.

➢ Assist in promoting, encouraging and facilitating film, digital media, television and related production in Arizona.

➢ Develop strategies and methods to attract film, digital media, television and related business to Arizona.

➢ Assist film, digital media, television and related service personnel who use Arizona as a business location.

➢ Sponsor and support official function for film, digital media, television and related industries.

➢ Assist in establishing film, digital media and television ventures and appropriate related matters.

• Allows the Council to make inquiries, studies and investigations, hold hearings and receive comments form the public. Permits the Council to consult with outside experts in the private sector, organized labor, government agencies and institutions of higher education in order to perform its duties.

• Authorizes the Council, on request of the Governor, to provide other assistance or advice relating to its duties.

• Specifies that documents in the Council’s possession are subject to the Public Records statutes. A document may be kept confidential for up to six months after the date a request to inspect or copy it is received if the chairperson decides that disclosure would compromise or undermine the competitive position of Arizona to promote and market its location, crews, facilities, technical production and other services.

• Mandates the Council prepare and publish a report no later than April 30th of each year and make copies available to the public on request. The report must summarize the information collected pursuant to its prescribed duties.

• Requires the Council, in cooperation with the Department of Revenue (DOR), to adopt rules and publish and prescribe necessary forms and procedures to effectuate the production tax and infrastructure tax incentive statutes.

• Prohibits the Council from pre-approving income tax credits exceeding $100 million for any single calendar year beginning January 1, 2009. (This cap is increasing from $60 million.)

• Terminates the Council on July 1, 2019.

Miscellaneous

• Repeals the MOPIC statutes under the Department of Commerce in Title 41 and creates a new section for the language under Administrative Boards and Commissions.

• Extends the MOPIC through December 31, 2025.

• Reduces, from 50% to 25%, the percentage of Arizona residents a motion picture production company must employ in its production activities to qualify for the incentives.

• Increases to $100 million, the cap on the amount of income tax credits the Council may pre-approve for a company beginning January 1, 2009.

• Modifies the current definition of motion picture to include film, magnetic tape or digital media and still photography images.

• Contains a purpose and succession clause.

• Becomes effective on January 1, 2010, retroactive to taxable years beginning January 1, 2009.

• Contains technical and conforming changes.

House of Representatives

HCM 2009

opposing federal firearms legislation

Sponsor: Representative Burges

|DP |Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety |

|X |Caucus and COW |

| |House Engrossed | |

HCM 2009 encourages the United States Congress to oppose legislation impinging on the individual right of every American to keep and bear arms in any manner.

History

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The U.S. Supreme court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Prior to this ruling, the District of Columbia outlawed the possession of unregistered firearms and prohibited the registration of handguns.

In January 2009, U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced House Resolution 45 (Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009). This Act prohibits a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license. In order to be issued a firearm license, a person must submit to the Attorney General specified information including a current photograph and thumb print of the applicant along with a certificate attesting to the completion of a written firearms examination. Licenses are good for five years and may be renewed.

Provisions

• Encourages the U.S. Congress to oppose the passage of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, or any similar legislation, that would impinge on the individual right of every American to keep and bear arms in any manner.

Requires the Arizona Secretary of State to transmit copies of this Memorial to the President of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and each member of Congress from Arizona.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download