[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6357783,"mediaKeyId","2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a","parentId",2213759,"title","Arizona Senate committee advances bills to ban vehicle‑miles‑traveled taxes and mileage tracking","audioSeconds",2255,"startMs",23000,"endMs",2278000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a&start=23&end=2278","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a/thumbnail_23000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357783/Arizona/Arizona-Senate-committee-advances-bills-to-ban-vehiclemilestraveled-taxes-and-mileage-tracking","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357783-f077bafe5ec5556a58a56e74fd33ad1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775286893&Signature=PnZBcyBmVRqbeDvBTbQF-ht4C3bE3s3Ht08rf16svkOJjN9Dy~15NP1vj0Wxv-hX9s3jKKdabu2DW7X181eGt3lpqQTdtJ~k5j-xGDNxMq5m47BylkJUHI9~oTbICgUNbOjrn7k8kSYxLtgttC6bbIBctOqnVilPa8MsWdBHuFhFECfUDChVVgeWIC0lPqcsAbG5I5fuqqMzy4Q1yC24AjPALT0Mpxkzyhper7ZZHH7IpBuiZt9hO4KZZu3Q4RG4hoFiYm5FjTZV8MYn8pnvKia~Ny9DtOmpSTRqmZdnDFmTN7YEPHDUBwLy8PAX4QP81l3B37MwQFmG7YpT~-Zv8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona State Legislature","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Government Committee members voted to give a due‑pass recommendation to Senate Bill 1092 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004, measures that would prohibit state and local governments from adopting vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) reduction targets, imposing taxes or fees based on miles driven, or using systems that track an individual’s vehicle miles without consent. The committee adopted a two‑page amendment to each measure before advancing both, and each passed the committee by voice roll calls that recorded 4 ayes and 3 nos.

The bills were introduced together as “essentially mirrors” and the sponsor described them as protections for the “freedom to move.” The sponsor said the measures would prevent public entities from “tracking or taxing the miles that you travel” and framed the measures as a safeguard against what he described as government interventions to change individual behavior. He also referenced other jurisdictions such as San Diego as places where VMT proposals had been discussed.

Environmental and public‑health groups and local advocates urged the committee to oppose the bills. Sandy Barr, chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter, told the committee that travel‑reduction measures are part of state implementation plans to meet air quality standards and that removing VMT targets would shift the burden of reducing pollution to other sectors. Barr said reducing vehicle travel can help lower ozone levels and improve public health, particularly for children, the elderly and people with respiratory illness: “We encourage you to choose clean air and public safety, and to oppose both Senate Bill 1092 and SCR 1004.”

Vania Guevara (as transcribed), representing a community group, and Antonio Ramirez, political and policy director for Rural Arizona Action, testified in opposition to the bills and argued that denying local governments tools to plan for and reduce travel could limit options for people without vehicle access and hinder funding approaches for rural roads. Ramirez said VMT fees are a fairer long‑term user fee given increasing fuel efficiency and electric vehicles.

Proponents told the committee the measures protect personal privacy and economic freedom. Amy Yantez of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club described the bills as a “Freedom to Move Act” and framed VMT proposals as intrusive and regressive; she urged passage and a ballot referral for the constitutional amendment.

After public testimony the committee adopted the sponsor’s two‑page amendments to both measures and voted them out of committee by recorded roll calls. The committee chair announced the votes: SB 1092 as amended and SCR 1004 as amended each received a due‑pass recommendation by a committee vote of 4 ayes, 3 nos.

Votes at a glance:
- SB 1092 (prohibit VMT reduction targets, VMT‑based taxes/fees, and mileage tracking by public entities): amendment adopted; bill advanced 4–3.
- SCR 1004 (constitutional referral to prohibit VMT taxes/fees and tracking, subject to voter approval): amendment adopted; resolution advanced 4–3.

What the measures would do: SB 1092 would bar state and political subdivisions from considering or establishing vehicle‑miles‑traveled reduction goals, from imposing a tax or fee based on vehicle miles traveled, and from tracking person‑level vehicle miles by odometer readings, cameras or third‑party means that allow mileage tracking; the committee amendment adds several exemptions. SCR 1004 would refer a constitutional prohibition to voters with similar prohibitions and exemptions and would require voluntary consent for any program that monitors or limits VMT.

Next steps: Both measures advanced from committee and, if they continue to pass later committees and both chambers, SCR 1004 would require voter approval to amend the Arizona Constitution. The committee record shows differing views on policy tradeoffs: supporters focused on privacy and individual liberty; opponents highlighted air quality planning, public health, and local planning tools.

(End)","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","01/29/2025 - Senate Government","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Government Committee members voted to give SB 1092 and SCR 1004 a due‑pass recommendation after adopting sponsor amendments; each measure would bar VMT taxes and certain mileage tracking and passed the committee 4–3.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357765,"Committee advances competing proposals to redraw Maricopa County boundaries and create new counties",2830,5019000,7849000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a&start=5019&end=7849","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a/thumbnail_5019000.jpg","/articles/6357765/Arizona/Committee-advances-competing-proposals-to-redraw-Maricopa-County-boundaries-and-create-new-counties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357765-3de836aa27e76a6d71a99248890e2ec5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775286893&Signature=ImS9x88K2ePMRIIROk6FOFsvaY2HOtP-rNPMpJGhSZ6nsuoLX1~89oDsRWZnX3bqmyWmlBSs11FhgLxZZlTO80F~uvDeO2AfbP9zhNqtr-JmQbGqUC9oxjRN5X1fK3fK8DJzs7whWsEguW37~5aH0hhPodjP9q3Iy1XPY1lV9o3pxicQH5VNj5lIwGcxJcyb1y-2l5aoKIzQRNjjp4X-6x4EmRI4ua~QBP1YvyaQD7Hq4wA7TyC6zjYNUzKCLX735CDIYJj8SUc8rLuK1idfV9NscX6V6PDh4O6ouG68EZduQYne6878X9OxYo1FMmCA0n-q0k-ZJ2J-IXvyNBsxFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Government Committee advanced two competing bills that would change Maricopa County’s boundaries and governance. SB 1101 would create three new counties from portions of Maricopa; SB 1100 would transfer parts of Maricopa to adjacent counties (Pinal, La Paz, Yavapai, Yuma and Gila under the proposal). The committee adopted a sponsor amendment to SB 1101 (a date change) and subsequently gave both bills due‑pass recommendations by recorded votes of 4 ayes and 3 nos.

Sponsor rationale: The sponsor argued at length that Maricopa County is disproportionately large — the committee record cites a current Maricopa population of roughly 4.7 million (about 65% of the state) and projected growth that could put the county at 7.5 million in 30 years if current trends continue — and said the state needs more representative, local governance. The sponsor presented maps showing two approaches: (1) SB 1101’s option to carve Maricopa into a smaller Maricopa plus three new counties (named in the sponsor’s materials as Odom, Mogollon and Hohokam in the sponsor’s map) and (2) SB 1100’s approach to have adjacent counties absorb sections of Maricopa by “clawing in.”

Opponents’ concerns: Committee members and others raised several practical concerns. Senator Cooney and others flagged potential costs (committee references included an estimate cited by Maricopa County of roughly $155 million for reconfiguration), legal and operational issues (superior‑court judges must reside in the county they serve, special taxing district continuity, community college governance), and the risk that increased distances to county seats could reduce public participation. Members also questioned whether adjacent counties had been consulted and whether the resulting counties would have sustainable tax bases to support service levels.

Sponsor response and implementation pathways: The sponsor said the bills include transition provisions (SB 1101 contains a multi‑year transition period and intercounty oversight board in the draft) and suggested runways and intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) could smooth the transition for shared services, special taxing districts and community colleges. The sponsor also argued that option 2 (boundary transfers to adjacent counties) would require less new infrastructure because existing county facilities and staff could serve transferred areas.

Committee action: The committee adopted the six‑page Hoffman amendment to SB 1101 (a drafting change to an implementation date) and then advanced SB 1101 as amended by a 4–3 vote. SB 1100 also advanced 4–3. The sponsor said these bills are intended to begin a longer public and legislative conversation; she acknowledged significant implementation work would be required and that the current governor would likely not sign them in the present term.

What’s next: Both bills will proceed to subsequent legislative consideration. Key follow‑up topics for staff and stakeholders include transition costs, IGAs for shared services and special districts, impacts on judicial residency and election timing for new county offices.

(End)","Two competing proposals to redraw Maricopa County — one creating three new counties and one transferring parts of Maricopa into existing neighboring counties — were advanced by the committee after extended debate about population, costs and transition logistics.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357769,"Committee advances bill to bar public entities from exposing minors to pornographic materials, classify violations as felony",953,4137000,5090000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a&start=4137&end=5090","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a/thumbnail_4137000.jpg","/articles/6357769/Arizona/Committee-advances-bill-to-bar-public-entities-from-exposing-minors-to-pornographic-materials-classify-violations-as-felony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357769-9b89da227cda5982fc128de1bccefa82/orig.mp4?Expires=1775286893&Signature=HR7ZvCtXjweSr1zPJzjg1QErVTvg8BJGmZujgL0WXEPMNL2-e2Ng4MKyW2jkTnSFnOT6y2zXenvjpPf4wtok-vp8MqsOmoWVTcZogtluuNawdW9KmxI3sdTMLC78JbQPXOR5xP7tpgJ6-MXFY1bNYIZQb9AcQpPmae-CV4VYK~dBXuvriJ4ajF4irT6rs-sPkZPboH-uyRqgfuQsNREUyixBPT5-LpbHSbaS4Y3Ow2Sawg87ObI2VOUes~HwwwZEQ7~wdqNhR3BtnsnRL6CwJ2C5IVv4NjtCFbzSqOVIdMtuhcZuOhIgqXhcecurwRTDaOTSrmMko3dnf4XeMetcDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Government Committee gave SB 1099 a due‑pass recommendation after debate about the bill’s scope and implementation. The measure would bar the state, local governments and their contractors from exposing minors to pornographic materials and from allowing public facilities to be used to film sexual acts; the bill classifies violations in the public‑entity context as a felony (as drafted).

Supporters said SB 1099 would protect children from being shown explicit material in government programs, citing prior incidents involving public‑school employees. The sponsor stated that taxpayer‑funded buildings should not be used to film explicit acts. Several senators described the bill as a response to documented cases and an attempt to close gaps outside the school context.

Opponents warned that parts of the bill are vague and could lead to over‑enforcement, especially in public libraries where adult materials are normally available to adults but must be shielded from minors. Gene (as transcribed) Woodbury, representing Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, urged the committee to vote no and said implementation in school libraries has produced over‑enforcement and removal of books that are not pornographic. Woodbury cautioned that the bill’s language could make compliance impractical for librarians and chill access to educational materials.

Committee members asked staff to clarify statutory definitions and whether the existing criminal code defines “explicit acts.” Staff said text for explicit materials was previously defined in Title 15 for school‑related rules and that committee staff would research any remaining statutory definition gaps for “explicit acts.” The sponsor said the language was intended to be narrow and to protect children and public property.

The committee approved SB 1099 by roll call, 4 ayes and 3 nos, and the bill now moves forward. Members voting against raised vagueness and First Amendment concerns; supporters emphasized child protection and the use of taxpayer properties.

(End)","SB 1099 would prohibit state and local governments and their contractors from exposing minors to pornographic materials or using public facilities to film sexual acts; the committee advanced the bill 4–3 after testimony from advocacy groups that urged opposing the bill because of vagueness and possible overreach in public libraries.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357775,"Committee advances bill barring financial firms from discriminating based on social or political scores",380,3755000,4135000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a&start=3755&end=4135","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a/thumbnail_3755000.jpg","/articles/6357775/Arizona/Committee-advances-bill-barring-financial-firms-from-discriminating-based-on-social-or-political-scores","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357775-21e23af0d5ed01f92b5a6b540f5b288d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775286893&Signature=Z~JjVbLlqTLbGrwBQ~9j4J458xkOjPz9-z5c9tYctTfSWQSj2Z75mNP4~6f9ElFm5bAIgUFf0olwlnYzJI41R0rI0bJm6IYOisnk9qbNoLyuphzHPAirUE1HYp9hu7BcIbmKnBaRWBmqxDTZeGjxbKkfioadrlt44tRDk3k5gM7WB1MbtXpSIwBR-oQufD4c-vCUkCGzQFptGz~qkfOSlhrVMmuru3~NJ9jqxwI4CFG1AXxZz2MTvFhEY~S03wbKN2LBECnDFtSKDJo4D9zV5FJ0AnW0ISN~atEkwDUAubF94luiioSeVI5sWcyKd1xp4zfna7m1XOxh908cjS51Ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Government Committee voted to advance SB 1094, a bill that would prohibit financial institutions, insurers and credit reporting agencies from discriminating against persons based on political affiliation or environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores (described in the bill as social/values‑based criteria). The bill would allow firms to use subjective standards if those standards are fully disclosed and explained. The sponsor framed the measure as a response to high‑profile national incidents and said discrimination based on political ideology should not occur.

No public testifiers appeared in the committee record for this hearing slot, although members discussed prior input from industry groups. One senator noted that the Arizona Bankers Association had testified in 2022 that the industry viewed such legislation as a “solution in search of a problem.” The committee ultimately approved the bill by recorded vote; the transcript records a final committee tally of 4 ayes and 3 nos.

Supporters said the measure protects Arizonans from “debanking” or other financial exclusion based on politics or social scores. Opponents questioned whether the bill addresses a real problem in Arizona—citing prior banker testimony—and raised drafting concerns.

Next steps: SB 1094 advanced from committee with a due‑pass recommendation and would proceed to subsequent legislative action. If the measure moves, stakeholders identified for follow‑up include the Arizona Bankers Association and consumer‑financial advocacy groups.

(End)","SB 1094, advanced by the Senate Government Committee, would prohibit financial institutions, insurers and credit reporting agencies from discriminating based on political affiliation or environmental/social/governance (ESG) scores unless standards are fully disclosed; sponsor cited recent national banking controversies in support.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357779,"Committee advances bill to codify 'pecuniary‑only' investment standard for state investments",1301,2589000,3890000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a&start=2589&end=3890","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213759-1cb975ac087205454ac17a5b02fcf80a/thumbnail_2589000.jpg","/articles/6357779/Arizona/Committee-advances-bill-to-codify-pecuniaryonly-investment-standard-for-state-investments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357779-ba2cbc8fe3d29974091743236aa6a952/orig.mp4?Expires=1775286893&Signature=XT6gr-s2zcRwyNXh3kUqv98CJRL0spX7CugENEO6LPqkCEM8u4ewzYvyHBPG7ifNpM2t-QWq4FUcl7cXNvVrYlCGGLKl06oQLB7N298BtH3xEo3RUrXtBtwl4BU2H-TG99L6bfhznP0FZcNx1MWf~ICFsdMzkHd60CQPew84bTtS5Y5pIjfI~kINpPZEHXhuUcL-E8PnxGAH-NEEwh0dsweZ5Y1LuMKfnx~5tBungFpVgxF1BIMs4C~YMVTbYQkTUucaJMZIdaFx~QEf89JF0INIw2s6SN7LGIWK3ugoL3meG7qi5eH9~W2mGrK1Jbfi5tWZVC-8P07t5OBMvugCEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Government Committee gave SB 1093 a due‑pass recommendation after a policy discussion and testimony from the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS). The bill would require state investments made by the treasurer or fiduciaries to be made “in the sole interest of the beneficiary” and based on prescribed pecuniary factors, prohibit taking unnecessary risks, and limit proxy voting to the governmental entity that establishes a plan. The sponsor said the measure aims to codify current best practices in statute.

Jessica Thomas, legislative liaison for the Arizona State Retirement System, testified that ASRS is concerned about the bill’s drafting as written. Thomas said the retirement system’s fiduciary duty is to its members and beneficiaries (retirees and employees), not to a generic “beneficiary taxpayer,” and expressed concern that the bill might restrict contracting with investment managers that offer environmental, social and governance (ESG) options to other clients even when ASRS does not use those options. She also noted that ASRS invests in commingled funds, where the system cannot directly control proxy votes for each share.

Committee members sought clarification about how ASRS weighs long‑term risks, smoothing of returns and how non‑pecuniary policies might be considered where they affect pecuniary returns. Thomas said ASRS evaluates investments on a long‑term basis — using smoothing and amortization practices — and considers social or governance issues only “to the extent that it affects the pecuniary returns.”

The sponsor said the bill is modeled to preserve the treasurer’s and fiduciaries’ focus on financial returns for taxpayers and retirees and said she has worked with the treasurer’s office on policy language. The committee moved SB 1093 forward with a recorded vote of 4 ayes and 3 nos.

What to watch: ASRS asked to work with the sponsor on technical changes, particularly clarifying the beneficiary language and the treatment of commingled funds and proxy voting. The bill would change the statutory standard for public investing if enacted and could affect contracting rules for managers and the practice of proxy voting for commingled funds.

(End)","SB 1093, advanced by the Senate Government Committee, would require investments made by the state treasurer or plan fiduciaries to be made solely in the interest of beneficiaries and based on pecuniary factors; the Arizona State Retirement System raised implementation concerns and asked to work with sponsors on technical changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Arizona Senate committee advances bills to ban vehicle‑miles‑traveled taxes and mileage tracking

Committee advances competing proposals to redraw Maricopa County boundaries and create new counties

Committee advances bill to bar public entities from exposing minors to pornographic materials, classify violations as felony

Committee advances bill barring financial firms from discriminating based on social or political scores

Committee advances bill to codify 'pecuniary‑only' investment standard for state investments