SB1180 — Senate Bill 1180 is introduced and explained as a measure requiring the Arizona Department of Revenue to conform to certain federal tax code changes affecting federal adjusted gross income, codifying current practice and creating a consistent statutory process for what is included on tax forms. Members ask clarifying questions about whether the bill is being interpreted as intended and whether it would apply only to above-the-line items; the department confirms that it would codify existing practice and would not alter this year’s executive-order-related changes. The discussion concludes with a motion to return the bill with a due pass recommendation, followed by the committee vote, which passes 7-0-0.
James Roth — Mentioned as someone whose input may be needed.
Molly Murphy — Molly Murphy from the Department of Revenue introduces herself and says she is available to answer questions about bill 1180. She then responds to a follow-up question seeking clarification about what the bill covers.
Molly Murphy — Testified in support of Senate Bill 1430 and described three provisions in the bill.
SCR1028 — SCR 1028 is introduced as the next agenda item and explained as a referral measure tied to voter approval, intended to limit delegation of fee-setting authority to agencies and send the question to voters. The discussion then shifts into testimony, with several speakers opposing the bill as unnecessary and potentially harmful to business, public safety, revenue, schools, core services, and infrastructure policy, arguing existing fee rules already prevent abuse and that the measure could hinder government funding. Other comments frame the bill as addressing whether there should be limits on delegating fee authority and support sending the issue to voters as a safeguard. The item concludes with SCR 1028 passing by a vote of four to three.
Joseph Palomino — Joseph Palomino, speaking for the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, testified in respectful opposition to SCR 1028 and explained that fee-setting is generally constrained by statute and tied to service-related standards. He argued that agencies and businesses are often best positioned to set fees to keep operations functioning normally, and that requiring legislative approval for fee changes tied to rising costs could slow necessary adjustments and potentially affect business operations or public safety. He characterized the bill as limiting an existing exception and requiring legislative action for fee changes.
Joe / Joseph Palomino — The senator addresses the witness and asks for clarification on existing fee rules.
SB1292 — The committee takes up Senate Bill 1292. The bill is explained as narrowing the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System’s 5% voting-stock restriction so it applies only to publicly traded corporations. A witness testifies in support of the bill, noting PSPRS support, and the discussion concludes with a motion to return the bill with a do pass recommendation.
Diane McAllister — Diane McAllister, speaking on behalf of PSPRS, supports Senate Bill 1292 and explains that the legislation is needed because changes in how investment funds are classified have created compliance problems under the existing statute.
SB1294 — Senate Bill 1294 is explained as restoring county assessors’ authority to prorate property value for destroyed property and reinstating prior language so destroyed property is treated consistently. The discussion clarifies that the bill limits the five-year retention of property classification to property destroyed by a verifiable accident such as fire, flood, or other act of God, while preserving the benefit for other destroyed property. The bill is supported as protecting taxpayers from being taxed on destroyed property, and the committee then moves the bill forward with a do pass recommendation, passing it by a vote of 6 to 1.
SB1294 — Rasmussen referenced SB 1294 as an earlier bill in the hearing.
Jennifer Steele — Jennifer Steele of the Arizona Tax Research Association testified in support of SB 1294 and explained the background and intent of the 2024 legislation amending the property classification section. She said the change was meant to address homes destroyed by flood or fire, especially in northern Arizona, where rebuilding could take years, so owners would not lose rebates or have their property class changed while rebuilding. She also clarified that the intent was to keep destroyed homes in the same class for up to five years and allow prorating for other destroyed property.
SB1430 — Senate Bill 1430 was introduced as the annual tax corrections act, intended to correct errors, remove obsolete language, and make clarifying changes to the tax statutes. A motion was then made to return the bill with a do pass recommendation, and the committee approved it unanimously by a 7-0 vote.
Ms. Murphy — Invited to speak on the tax corrections bill.
SB1430 — Supported by the Department of Revenue as a tax corrections bill.
SB1270 — Senate Bill 1270 is introduced and explained as a measure allowing CORP employers to make supplemental contribution incentive payments to Tier 3 members in the defined contribution retirement plan. The discussion clarifies that employers in the CORP system would have the option, but not the obligation, to add contributions to employees’ defined contribution accounts, emphasizing that the bill is voluntary and imposes no requirement on employers.
SB1270 — Senate Bill 1270 was moved forward with a do-pass recommendation, and the committee later announced the final vote result, passing the bill 6-1.
Don Isaacson — Don Isaacson, speaking on behalf of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, testified in support of the bill. He explained that the measure is needed because recruitment and retention are difficult for sheriffs' detention officers and the Department of Corrections, and emphasized that the bill is voluntary for employers and does not require any action unless they choose to participate.
Richard Boehner — Richard Boehner of the FOP is noted as being present at the meeting.
Sheriff Rhodes — Said the sheriffs support the bill, though they want to preserve momentum for returning to a defined benefit program.
Len Gilroy — Provided positive feedback during formulation of the bill.
Richard Maynor — Identified himself as representing the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police and testified in support of the bill.
Fraternal Order of Police / FOP representative — Identified himself as being with the Fraternal Order of Police.
Diane — Identified as having all the answers if there are questions.
SB1290 — Senate Bill 1290 is introduced and then described as requiring the Arizona Department of Revenue and county assessors to give advance notice before certain property inspections, provide inspection reports to property owners, and grant agricultural property a three-year exemption from subsequent on-site inspections.
SB1290 — Speakers opposed Senate Bill 1290, arguing that while it adds a notice of inspection and inspection report, the bill’s undefined reporting requirements could create inconsistent statewide implementation and additional costs. They also warned that the three-year restriction on on-site agricultural inspections could, when combined with related legislation and appeals, create a much longer gap in inspections. The discussion concluded with a request to oppose the bill because it would burden assessors and agricultural property owners.
SB1290 — Senate Bill 1290 was discussed in committee, with supporters noting that advance notice would help agricultural property owners demonstrate seasonal use and avoid misjudgments. A motion was then made to return the bill with a due pass recommendation. Opposition argued the bill was not a good solution because it could shift tax burdens when land values increase without reassessment. The discussion concluded with the bill passing by a vote of four to two, with one member not voting.
Patrick Bray — Identified himself as representing the Arizona Farm and Ranch Group and began testimony in support of the bill.
Jordie Clark — Jordie Clark, representing the Arizona Association of Counties on behalf of county assessors, explained that assessors are required to inspect agricultural property on a four-year cycle, reviewing one quarter of properties each year. She described how assessors have discretion to investigate when they observe a new build or demolition, including checking whether the owner obtained the proper permits and followed the correct approval process. She also confirmed that assessors would not be able to go to the property until the full cycle was complete, and when asked about how property improvements are communicated to assessors, she said she could not answer and referred that question to the assessors themselves.
SB1290 — SB 1290 is discussed in the context of procedural clarification about stakeholder positions. A speaker notes that county assessors and their teams are present to answer technical questions and raises confusion about the bill’s status. The discussion then clarifies that while the association did not take a position on the mirror bills due to timing, AECO did take a full position on SB 1290.
SB1290 — Cited as part of a workable solution that would add fairness without handcuffing the assessor's office.
HB2105 — Mentioned as one of the mirror bills that did not receive a position because of timing.
HB2104 — Mentioned as one of the mirror bills that did not receive a position because of timing.
AECO — Described as having taken a full position on SB 1290, while not taking a position on the mirror bills because of timing.
Eddie Cook — Eddie Cook testified in opposition to SB 1290, saying it is fundamentally a notification and inspection-reporting bill that would add bureaucracy and cost to taxpayers. He argued that counties would incur significant mailing expenses and described how Maricopa County already sends denial letters and has used certified mail, but that notification issues still remain. He then explained a complaint in Pinal County involving assessors visiting an agricultural property, noting that this was the only known complaint and that most counties handle inspections collaboratively. Cook further said agricultural exemptions can prevent assessors from knowing about new construction, which is why annual inspections are needed to ensure accurate property valuations and tax rolls. He closed by referencing discussions with the Farm Bureau and emphasizing a collaborative approach similar to practices in several counties.
SB1734 — Referenced as prior legislation that allowed denial letters to be sent by certified mail.
Darren Rasmussen — Introduced himself as the chief deputy assessor from Mohave County and testified in opposition to SB 1290.
Darlene Monterey — Introduced herself as the Graham County assessor and described her agricultural background.
Raul Mazza — Named as the one ag appraiser working with the Graham County assessor.
Brittany Bingle — Brittany Bingle of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association introduced herself and then testified in support of a technical fix, explaining that the issue is important to her members. She illustrated the problem with an example of a member being told by an assessor to sell land because of nearby residential development, framing the bill as a response to years of frustration over this issue.
SB1291 — Mentioned alongside SB 1290 as part of the proposed workable solution.
Daniel Harris — Identified himself as government relations manager for the Arizona Farm Bureau and began testimony.
SB1215 — The committee discusses Senate Bill 1215 as a technical correction to firefighter cancer coverage language, jokingly calling it the "comma bill" because the amendment converts the language into a cleaner column/list format. Members clarify that the amendment removes mistakenly included police/peace officer language so the bill applies only to firefighters. A witness expresses support for the bill, and the committee then moves to return SB 1215 as amended with a due pass recommendation, culminating in the bill being reported out favorably by a 6-1 vote.
Tom Caretto — Tom Caretto, Executive Vice President of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, testifies in support of the bill and explains that the proposed language change is intended to prevent denials from occurring.