ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-ninth Legislature – First Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 5 -- 2:00 p.m.
Chairman Crump called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Antenori |
Mr. Driggs |
Mrs. Tovar |
|
Mr. Campbell CH |
Mr. Gowan |
Mr. Montenegro, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mr. Chabin |
Mr. Nichols |
Mr. Crump, Chairman |
|
None |
|
|
|
HB2141 – DP (9-0-0-0) |
HB2310 – DP (7-2-0-0) |
|
HB2268 – DPA (9-0-0-0) |
HB2401 – DP (8-0-0-1) |
|
HB2269 – DPA (9-0-0-0) |
HB2432 – DP (7-2-0-0) |
|
HB2270 – DISCUSSED & HELD |
HCR2024 – DP (6-3-0-0) |
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
Mr. Antenori, having voted on the prevailing side, moved that the Government Committee reconsider its action of Tuesday, February 10, 2009, whereby the Committee failed to pass HB2253 and that the measure be placed on the agenda and reconsidered at the next regular or special meeting of the Committee within seven days.
Chairman Crump explained that Representative Russ Jones would like to make some significant changes to HB2253, so a motion to reconsider is needed to hear the bill next week.
Question was called on the motion to reconsider HB2253. The motion carried.
HB2268 - county and municipal budgets – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2268 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the eight-line Crump amendment to HB2268 dated 2/13/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted.
Zach Tretton, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that HB2268 allows counties, cities and towns to post estimates of expenses on their official Internet websites (Attachment 2). The amendment requires counties, cities and towns to post estimates of revenues and expenses on their official Internet website, in addition to making them available at libraries and administrative offices; requires a summary of the estimate and a notice, together with the library addresses and websites where the complete copy of the estimate of expenses may be found, to be published once a week for at least two consecutive weeks in the official county, city or town newspaper (Attachment 1).
Chairman Crump stated that last week when Representative Russ Jones’ bill on a similar issue was defeated, he suggested integrating the two, but a decision was made not to do so because there were legal issues in relation to Mr. Jones’ bill. This bill deals with budgets, not public hearings, and would require a display ad in the newspaper leading to more information online or at the library, which would avoid the example shown last week of four pages of fine print in the newspaper that very few would ever read.
Todd Madeksza, Director of Education and Licensing, County Supervisors Association, in favor of HB2268, stated that people wishing to obtain all of the information would be referred to the website, county library or county offices. He was asked last week what type of information would be included in the ad, which Yuma County provided (Attachment 3).
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2268 but did not speak:
Jeffrey Kros, Legislative Director, League of Cities & Towns
Question was called on the motion that the eight-line Crump amendment to HB2268 dated 2/13/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2268 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-0 (Attachment 4).
HB2141 - homeowners’ associations; sun screens – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2141 do pass.
Rene Guillen, Majority Research
Analyst, Water & Energy Committee, explained that HB2141 prohibits
homeowners’ associations (HOAs) from excluding the use of solar screens and
shade structures, but allows for the adoption of reasonable rules regarding the
devices’ use
(Attachment 5).
Mr. Chad Campbell, sponsor, related that a bill passed in 2007 precluded homeowner associations (HOAs) from prohibiting the use of solar devices. He said this bill attempts to do the same with solar screens and shade structures. He added that there has been some concern about the definition of shade structure, but he has no problem with further clarification.
Chairman Crump asked if litigious
situations could be created if someone, for example, has a
30 foot sail in the backyard that shades the entire house. Mr. Campbell
responded that the bill is meant to address solar screens on windows and any
type of shade structure to shade the window, not the entire house. He believes
those concerns can be addressed by further defining shade structures. As far as
litigation, one of the reasons the bill requires that the court award
reasonable attorney fees was to encourage people to talk to each other and reach
a reasonable decision without going to court. He said feedback on the 2007
bill from HOAs and individuals is that this language helped in terms of solving
problems.
Pat Haruff, Coalition of
Homeowners for Rights and Education (CHORE), spoke in favor of HB2141. She
stated that people in Arizona need to conserve energy. She said when she moved
to Arizona from Lake Tahoe she called Salt River Project and was told the best way
to conserve energy is to stop the sun from getting to the window, i.e., awnings.
As to shade structures, most cities have a height limit and would not allow
someone to put a 30 foot sail in the yard. She added that the word reasonable
is fodder for HOA attorneys, and when
Mr. Campbell passed the solar panel bill, there were problems; in fact, one HOA
ordered a homeowner putting in solar panels to paint the panels white, which
does not absorb the sun well. She said she believes reasonable should
be determined by the manufacturer and installer.
Scot Mussi, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, neutral on HB2141, stated that he is willing to work with Mr. Campbell on minor issues relating to clarification of reasonable in relation to color, appearance and size and further defining shade structure.
Mr. Campbell indicated that he believes Mr. Mussi’s concerns can be addressed.
Vice-Chairman Goodale announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2131 but did not speak:
Bill Bridwell, representing self
Ryan Anderson, Community Associations Institute, opposed HB2141. He indicated that he conducted a search of solar screens and shade structures sold on the Internet, and there are some very reasonable items, but the gamut is fairly wide. He provided photos to the Members and requested rules regarding placement and the ability for an architectural committee, for example, to impose color and size restrictions.
Mr. Campbell reiterated that the intent is to focus on windows specifically, reiterating that he is willing to work on further clarification.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2141 but did not speak:
Mary Arnold, representing self
Sandy Bahr, Conservation Director, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Rauni Marsh, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HB2141 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-0 (Attachment 6).
HB2310, subdivision public reports – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2310 do pass.
Laurel Johnson, Majority Intern, explained that HB2310 modifies the Department of Real Estate’s procedure for reviewing subdividers’ notices and public reports for the sale of improved lots (Attachment 7).
Mr. Driggs, sponsor, deferred comments to Spencer Kamps.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2310 but did not speak:
Scot Mussi, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Spencer Kamps, Deputy Director, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, stated that he supports HB2310. He noted that this is a process in which current law allows 15 days for the Department to review and approve, but that time frame is often not met. The statute is silent on what happens after that, so after negotiating with the Department, this bill was developed. The bill allows a 10-day process where the decision stands if the Department sends a notice denying a public report, but if no notice is sent, after 10 days, the subdivider can move forward with the public report. He said this only applies to the expedited process. He related that there are standards in place today and under this bill to protect individuals if a mistake is made in the public report: 1) denial of the public report at any time when sales would stop immediately, and 2) amending the public report where every sale prior to the amendment that is deemed material would be cancelled. He added that as far as penalties are concerned, the Department can penalize homebuilders who violate the statute, and the review and approval process at the Department means nothing in a court of law.
Mr. Chabin asked if the report would stand if someone in the process of reviewing the report had a heart attack on the ninth day and the report did not reveal that hazardous waste was dumped within a half mile of the property. Mr. Kamps agreed that it would.
In response to a question, Mr. Kamps related that when the expedited process was originally adopted 10 to 12 years ago, the concept at that time was that there would be this type of proposal, which was worked out with the Department. In light of budget cuts and the workload of the Department over the last eight years, this was deemed an appropriate solution especially considering that the review and approval process can be denied or amended at a later date by the Department. Also, the individual who issued the public report and provides it to the consumer is still liable for every single document in the public report. This is a reasonable effort to develop a process that allows the reports to be done correctly.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2310 but did not speak:
Sandy Bahr, Conservation Director, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2310 but did not speak:
Jerome Jordan, Interim Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Question was called on the motion that HB2310 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-2-0-0 (Attachment 8).
HB2432 - school board membership; family members – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2432 do pass.
Laurel Johnson, Majority Intern, explained that HB2432 prohibits family members from serving together on a five-member school district governing board (Attachment 9). In response to a question, she clarified that the prohibition would apply to parents and their children through consanguinity and first degree of affinity would be their father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, spouse and stepchildren, but it would not apply to siblings.
Representative Ben Miranda, Sponsor, conveyed that the intent is to prohibit a husband and wife and their immediate children from serving on the same school board, which can be corrected in a Floor amendment.
Mr. Chabin stated that under existing state law, if someone is a member of a school board and any member of that person’s immediate family such as the spouse, brothers and sisters or children work for the school district, someone has to resign. He wondered why the bill does not contain the same restrictions.
Representative Miranda explained
that there are two districts where this occurred, which raises serious issues
about open meeting violations. One school district, in particular, controls
$70 million.
Mr. Campbell asked why not include brothers, sisters and other relatives or every elected body in the state as opposed to only school boards. Representative Miranda responded that he does not believe the bill should be expanded beyond what is required to resolve the issue. Discussion followed concerning broadening the language to include additional relatives and fire districts.
Mr. Chabin stated that he thought the language contained the same restrictions that apply to school board members and school employees, and as a co-sponsor, he would appreciate an amendment with that language.
Michelle Hindman, Majority Research Analyst, related that Subsection D of the bill states that no employee of the school district or the spouse of such employee may hold membership on the governing board of a school district of which such employee is employed.
Mr. Chabin and Mr. Campbell indicated that they agreed with that provision.
Representative Miranda stated that the intent is to address the entire family unit, which can be defined in the bill if it is not defined in statute, as husband and wife and their children, or spouses, if that makes everyone comfortable.
Chairman Crump asked if Representative Miranda is aware of any precedent in Arizona or elsewhere to do this, noting that he is concerned about constitutional issues in relation to people having the right to run for office. Also, he said, there is a distinction in the school board to employee situations, which is more of a subordinate-superior relationship that deals with discipline, raises, etc., whereas members of a board are co-equals. Representative Miranda responded that he ran this by several attorneys who believe this would not harm the constitution. He did not run it by the Rules attorneys, but discussed it with them, and said he cannot see any problems.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of persons who signed up in opposition to HB2432 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association
Mr. Campbell commented that he is concerned about the message this bill sends to voters and the precedent it may be setting. He believes this should apply to every elected body in the state and include all family members.
Question was called on the motion that HB2432 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-2-0-0 (Attachment 10).
HCR2024 - sovereignty; tenth amendment – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HCR2024 do pass.
Michelle Hindman, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HCR2024 stipulates that the State of Arizona is hereby claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Attachment 11).
Representative Judy Burges, sponsor, stated that the federal government has been trouncing the state’s constitutional rights for a number of years. Arizona is a sovereign state and not a branch of the federal government and needs to be treated as a sovereign state. This resolution tells the federal government that Arizona is very cash strapped at this time and cannot afford the unfunded mandates it is imposing.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of HCR2024 but did not speak:
Rauni Marsh, representing self
Bryan Turner, representing self
John Wentling, Vice President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Incorporated
Dave Kopp, President, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Incorporated
Michael Becker, representing self
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on HCR2024 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Question was called on the motion that HCR2024 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 12).
HB2269 - landlords; tenants; foreclosures – DO PASS AMENDED
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2269 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that the two-page Crump amendment to HB2269 dated 2/12/09 (Attachment 13) be adopted.
Zach Tretton, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, explained that HB2269 modifies foreclosure statutes regarding single family residences (Attachment 14).
Chairman Crump, sponsor, conveyed that with the significant increase in foreclosures he became aware of at least anecdotal evidence of good standing tenants, some with children in school, receiving five-day notice to vacate their home because the landlord was not paying the mortgage. In some cases, the landlord received rent from the tenant and did not pay the mortgage. He said he believes the requirement for the lender to send out this notice to occupants of the premise is a small cost with large benefits. He indicated that the notices are placed on the property, but can be blown off by the wind or removed by children or realtors showing the property, so the intent is to make sure notice goes to the tenant. He added that tenants involved in lease purchase agreements may have paid thousands of dollars toward purchase but lost the money due to foreclosure and deadbeat landlords; that money would now be placed in escrow for the benefit of the tenant or a bond would be posted by the landlord to secure the money.
Lori Lustig, Arizona Tenants Advocates, spoke in favor of HB2269. She stated that this bill deals with tenants, that the banks and lenders may not know who are living in the property, whose first knowledge of foreclosure may be when the constable goes out to serve the five-day eviction notice. She said this is the first step to provide notice to the tenant through regular mail to the premises that a sale has been scheduled. The notice would also contain the name of the lender the tenant could contact to let the lender know the tenant is living in the home. With Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the tenant may be able to make arrangements to make monthly rental payments and remain in the property. If it is a private lender that does not want to be in the business of property management, the lender may at least tell the tenant the sale is going to occur on a certain date and work with the tenant to make arrangements to move. She added that the bill also secures money for lease purchase arrangements.
Courtney Gilstrap Levinus, Arizona Multihousing Association, neutral on HB2269, noted that the security deposit provision states that once the home goes into foreclosure, the lease is terminated. That language could be very detrimental in a multi-housing situation because the foreclosure goes into receivership, but all of the leases in a 250-unit complex, for example, must stay in place because 250 residents cannot move out overnight. She said the property can then be sold to the next buyer and there would be a stream of income on the property.
Chairman Crump said he will have a Floor amendment to address Ms. Levinus’ concern.
Kathy Jorgensen, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, spoke in favor of HB2269. She related the story about a young couple with children who saved to buy a house in northwest Phoenix, but the wife lost her job and the husband’s hours were reduced, which resulted in the loss of their house due to foreclosure. After living with family and friends and a few nights in a car, the couple found a small house to rent. The wife obtained another job and the husband took a second job. A month ago, the couple was told by the Sheriff to vacate that day because the owner of the property pocketed the rent payments and foreclosure was completed. At this point, the couple contacted St. Vincent de Paul, which managed to get the family a hotel room for a few days before the couple found another rental. She stated that the notice required under this bill would have prevented the couple from losing money paid to the tenant, losing time off work, and the emotional turmoil of a Sheriff’s eviction. Further, St. Vincent’s would not have had to spend its meager resources for a hotel room for the family. She added that this case is not unique and the agency is responding to more and more of these situations. She urged the Members to support the bill.
Jay Kaprosy, Senior Government Relations Advisor, Arizona Bankers Association, opposed HB2269. He related that the bill requires banks to send an additional notice to every single foreclosure in the state, which is problematic because in the majority of circumstances, the bank is unaware of whether there is a tenant because the actual property owner improperly listed the property as an owner-occupied dwelling for loan purposes or failed to report the property as a rental. He indicated that at this point, he is only aware of anecdotal evidence that these situations are occurring. He added that there will be an additional regulatory burden and cost placed on banks already disadvantaged in circumstances where they are in a position to foreclose on a home.
In response to questions, Mr. Kaprosy stated that banks are not party to agreements between landlords and tenants, but will bear the cost of these notices. He related that other options would be to enhance the notice that is placed on the residence so the tenant’s rights are clear, and language giving the landlord the responsibility to notify the tenant.
Mr. Chabin suggested that it would be better for everyone to have the building occupied and maintained, so it would be in the bank’s best interest to change the business model.
In response to a question, Mr. Kaprosy conveyed that notice is posted on the residence going into foreclosure and a photo record is taken to show that occurred. There is no physical contact with the resident, mostly for the safety of the individual posting the notice.
Christie Deering, representing self, spoke in favor of HB2269. She testified that she is the mother of two children. She and her fiancée were renting a home a year ago and she thought the notices were junk mail. She said about a month later, a certified letter was received addressed to the owner of the property, so she contacted the property management company and was told the house was in foreclosure. She and her family had to move out in three to four weeks and finally received a letter from the landlord two weeks later stating the circumstances. She indicated that she discovered there was no protection in the Landlord Tenant Act, but she wrote a letter to the landlord requesting the security deposit (between $1,500 and $2,000), but the landlord wrote back that she should contact an attorney to obtain the money. She said she and her family found a place to live, but she had to uproot the children who had made friends in the neighborhood. She added that this bill would help protect people in similar situations.
Tom Farley, Arizona Association of Realtors, spoke in favor of HB2269 as amended. He stated that this is a situation that realtors see occurring daily and if this obligation is placed on the landlord, who is probably out of state, who is losing the house, and may have taken money from tenants, it is questionable that the landlord will comply and provide notice. He said the current five-day notice provides a very short time for the tenant to react, and this bill would extend the time to 30 days, giving the tenant more time. He added that the bill also provides protections for money paid for eventual purchase of a property by stipulating that the money be placed in escrow.
Chairman Crump pointed out that the posted notice on the property is not a five-day notice, but a 20-day notice, which in many cases, falls off or is taken off. He said with this bill, the notice goes out to the property owner and another notice goes to the premises marked occupant, so in many cases, the owner may receive two notices.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2269 but did not speak:
Arthur Chapa, Legislative Counsel, Pima County Board of Supervisors
Ken Volk, representing self
Mark Tynan, Attorney, representing self
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of persons who signed up in opposition to HB2269 but did not speak:
Janna Day, Lobbyist, Arizona Financial Services Association
Austin De Bey, Governmental Affairs Specialist, Arizona Credit Union League
Susie Stevens, Lobbyist, Arizona Credit Union League
Lee Miller, Lobbyist, Arizona Trustee's Association
Kelsey Lundy, Lobbyist, Citi Group
Question was called on the motion that the two-page Crump amendment to HB2269 dated 2/12/09 (Attachment 13) be adopted. The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2269 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-0 (Attachment 15).
HB2401, administrative rules oversight committee – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2401 do pass.
Michelle Hindman, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2401 establishes the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee (AROC) (Attachment 16).
Representative Vic Williams, Sponsor, stated that he believes AROC will bring a bipartisan approach to oversight for the business community and make the regulatory system more competitive in Arizona.
Marcus Osborn, Manager of Government and Public Affairs, Arizona Manufacturers Council, spoke in favor of HB2401. He stated that AROC will create a focused and structured mechanism for the Legislature to ensure the rules the agencies promulgate are consistent with statutory authority. He said AROC will allow the business community to address concerns over agency practices or decisions that may be inconsistent with statute, onerous or duplicative and provide a tie and some guidance to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) as rules are going through the process. He added that AROC is a needed measure that does not create any new staffing requirements and would meet as needed based on issues that arise.
Allison Bell, Vice President for Government Relations, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, spoke in favor of HB2401. She said AROC would be a forum for businesses to comment on the statutes, rules and agency policies that could be onerous, duplicative or inconsistent with the legislative intent.
Mr. Campbell said he understands the importance of the bill, but he is concerned about adding another layer of government to a process that people are trying to streamline. He asked if the stakeholders discussed the possibility of a sunset to see how AROC works. Ms. Bell indicated that the stakeholders are amenable to a sunset provision.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2401 but did not speak:
Courtney Gilstrap Levinus, Central Arizona Chamber Coalition
Farrell Quinlan, West Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Lorna Romero, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Rip Wilson, WalMart Stores
David Maurer, Prescott Chamber of Commerce
Hieu Tran, Arizona Manufacturers Council
Susan Anable, Manager, Government Relations, Cox Communications
Heather Bernacki, Government Relations Associate, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Lori Lustig, Southern Arizona Chamber of Commerce Alliance
Paul Parisi, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Kevin McCarthy, President, Arizona Tax Research Association
Ken Mueller, Sims Metal Management
Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association
Todd Sanders, Vice President of Public Affairs - Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
Scot Mussi, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Michelle Bolton, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business
Lyn White, Manager, Government Relations, Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
Eric Emmert, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
John Mangum, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance
Penny Allee Taylor, Specialist/Government Affairs, Southwest Gas Corporation
Vice-Chairman Montenegro announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2401 but did not speak:
Sandy Bahr, Conservation Director, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
Question was called on the motion that HB2401 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-1 (Attachment 17).
HB2270 - state capitol restoration recapture district – DISCUSSED & HELD
Vice-Chairman Montenegro moved that HB2270 do pass.
Kitty Decker, Majority Research Analyst/Senior Economist, Ways & Means Committee, explained that HB2270 creates the State Capitol Centennial Restoration Trust Fund with monies deposited from increased transaction privilege tax (TPT) revenues generated from newly established Economic Recapture Districts created by cities or counties (Attachment 18).
Chairman Crump, sponsor, stated that the issue of a new capitol is always on legislators’ minds, but the question is how to accomplish it.
Barry Aarons, Lobbyist, Arizona Tourism Alliance; Tucson Convention & Visitors Center, spoke in favor of HB2270. He conveyed that as the state's centennial approaches, it is necessary to look at renovating the State Capitol, but the only thing standing in the way is the capital necessary to build it. He encouraged the Members to vote for HB2270 in order to have a vehicle to dialogue about capital restoration and provide the tourism industry with opportunities for new product development. In response to questions, he related that the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission has plans drafted by the Architectural College at Arizona State University, which is a good blueprint with which to begin.
Chairman Crump announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2270 but did not speak:
Jeffrey Kros, Legislative Director, League of Cities and Towns
Chairman Crump announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2270 but did not speak:
Steve Voeller, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Kevin McCarthy, President, Arizona Tax Research Association
Mr. Aarons elaborated on the return on investment that is realized from tourism, mentioning the University of Phoenix stadium. He said depending upon the types of venues that are used by the different political subdivisions, when tourism promotion is done for those, generally between $4.00 and $8.08 is returned in General Fund revenues to the state, a commensurate amount to cities that have sales taxes and the same to counties with any kind of consumption taxes. He added this will be a long term major project that will add value to the entire Capitol Mall section of Phoenix.
At Chairman Crump’s request, Mr. Aarons indicated that he will contact the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission and see if the drawings can be obtained.
Chairman Crump said an exhibit could probably be set up. He surmised that people are wondering why this is being talked about in this economic situation, but submitted that this is a good time to prepare so that when the economy improves, there is an ability to take advantage of this legislation.
Chairman Crump announced that the bill will be held in order to continue discussions.
Vice-Chairman Montenegro withdrew the motion that HB2270 do pass.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
March 3, 2009
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office: video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov).
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
11
February 17, 2009
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------