HB 2470 amends Arizona law governing legislative travel reimbursement and subsistence payments. The bill keeps the existing mileage reimbursement structure tied to the federal mileage rate, but changes how daily subsistence is calculated for lawmakers. For members whose permanent residence is outside Maricopa County, subsistence would no longer be a fixed dollar amount set in statute; instead, it would be tied to 100% of the average of the six highest months of the annual federal per diem rate for Maricopa County, including lodging, as determined annually by the Department of Administration. For members who live in Maricopa County, the bill retains a lower in-session subsistence amount of $35 per day, and after the first 120 days of a regular session, that amount drops to $10 per day.
The bill also preserves the ability of legislators to receive subsistence for regular or special sessions, and for other legislative matters with prior approval from the presiding officer. It continues to allow lawmakers to opt out of subsistence payments and requires claims for travel and subsistence to be countersigned by the presiding officer. Out-of-state travel reimbursement remains governed by the rules applicable to state officers.
In practical terms, HB 2470 would update section 41-1104 of the Arizona Revised Statutes by replacing a statutory per diem formula with a rate that is indexed to federal per diem data and adjusted annually by the Department of Administration. That would affect reimbursement amounts for legislators, especially those who live outside Maricopa County, and would make the payment structure more responsive to changes in federal lodging and meal rates.
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so the available context does not show formal debate, amendments, or a documented partisan split. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be a compensation and reimbursement adjustment for legislators rather than a policy change affecting the public directly. The title and sponsor list suggest it is a legislative pay/per diem issue, which often draws attention to the cost of legislative service and fairness between in-county and out-of-county members.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether the proposed increase or formula change is justified, particularly because it would raise or rebase subsistence payments for some members while preserving lower rates for Maricopa County legislators. Another possible issue is the optics of lawmakers voting on their own compensation-related benefits, though the bill also includes an opt-out provision that may be intended to address that concern.
Impact
HB 2470 would amend A.R.S. § 41-1104, changing the statutory formula for legislative subsistence and travel reimbursement. It would replace the current fixed per diem structure for members living outside Maricopa County with an annually determined amount based on federal per diem data, while keeping mileage reimbursement tied to the federal mileage rate and preserving the existing lower subsistence amounts for Maricopa County residents, including the reduced rate after 120 days of session. The bill would affect reimbursement claims, the Department of Administration’s annual calculation duties, and the compensation received by legislators who travel or serve away from their permanent residence.
Sentiment
No votes or committee discussion are provided, so there is no recorded public debate to measure directly. From the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to have support from its listed introducers and is framed as an administrative update to legislative reimbursement rates. The overall tone is procedural and compensation-focused rather than controversial on policy grounds, though any increase in legislative per diem can attract scrutiny over lawmaker pay.
Contention
The likely contention centers on the size and structure of the subsistence increase, especially the shift for non-Maricopa County members to a federal-per-diem-based formula that may be higher or more variable than the current statutory amount. Critics could question whether lawmakers should adjust their own reimbursement rates and whether the change is necessary, while supporters may argue that the formula better reflects actual travel and lodging costs and creates a more objective annual adjustment mechanism. The distinction between Maricopa County and non-Maricopa County members may also be a point of debate because it preserves different treatment based on residence.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.