Technical correction; state buildings; defibrillators
Summary
HB 2142 is a technical correction bill that amends Arizona Revised Statutes section 34-401, which governs automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in state buildings. The bill restates the existing requirement that any new state building, or any state building undergoing a major renovation costing at least $250,000, must be equipped with AEDs. It also retains the directive that the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting include funding for AED placement in capital budgets for new state buildings.
The measure appears to be largely conforming and clarifying in nature rather than making a substantive policy change. The text updates the statute’s wording while preserving the underlying AED mandate for state construction and renovation projects. In practical terms, it continues to tie AED installation to state capital planning and budgeting, affecting state agencies responsible for building design, renovation, and appropriations.
Impact
HB 2142 would amend section 34-401 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, but it does not materially change the existing AED requirement for state buildings. The statute would continue to require automated external defibrillators in newly constructed state buildings and in major renovations meeting the $250,000 threshold, and it would continue to require budget planning for AED placement in capital budgets. The primary impact is on state building projects, capital budget preparation, and the agencies involved in facilities planning and construction.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure reads as a routine technical correction with a public-safety purpose, which typically suggests limited controversy and broad procedural support. The absence of voting history or discussion prevents a more specific assessment of legislative sentiment.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record. Because the bill is framed as a technical correction and simply restates an existing AED requirement, any disagreement would likely have centered on whether the statutory language needed clarification or whether the budgeting directive should be updated. However, there is no transcript or vote data showing any member or stakeholder raising objections.