[{"_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",6343742,"mediaKeyId","2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f","parentId",2251763,"title","Caucus hears a package of water‑policy bills on subsequent AMAs, wildcat subdivisions and temporary protections; members express divided views","audioSeconds",148,"startMs",3797000,"endMs",3945000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f&start=3797&end=3945","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f/thumbnail_3797000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6343742/Arizona/Caucus-hears-a-package-of-waterpolicy-bills-on-subsequent-AMAs-wildcat-subdivisions-and-temporary-protections-members-express-divided-views","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343742-93f6cfa10d20a13c5da928f0d2e1294c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147902&Signature=hAYrqulsg6dCUNrk9hNNcfqjO-Bk9KvZgr3t0-~5oCxW5bGaw3uhRcUfGx~nEWnD-WsITLdnVR6k3C7Lt75MYg9zD6U~Dts0jDA5vF1dLqlw2IOjrex8IXBMCg80C4UJy07nQv3sLZ2JlSgMpHoWfwibXjamLzSo90cKM1YGuRQ4EQ2dq3rLluobEdejr9IcXtr0Gp6V6lmqm6Hqn6V~o0t~3SxbbNgPYMO36O3s0f4CaFwTOymqZ9qJItKtdaqnJOxpV0jv~F2IZcNZu1NpbnrZk1hr7XnlYhu2BgXoFLSxa-LKeLOICZreoAEFpo2yy9QEBo~~0A7-KKpssSvwGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona State Legislature","date","2025-02-04T00:00:00Z","article","A series of water bills drew extended discussion in caucus. Sponsor Vicente introduced multiple related measures addressing subsequent active management areas (AMAs), the Department of Water Resources’ review authority, and land‑division rules often described as responses to the so‑called \"wildcat subdivision\" loophole.

Representative Vicente summarized House Bill 20‑88 as requiring the DWR director to periodically review areas designated as subsequent AMAs and allowing the director to remove the subsequent‑AMA designation if statutory criteria are no longer met. House Bill 20‑89 would allow petitioning by eligible voters in a subsequent AMA (10% threshold) to trigger review and, if the director does not find the AMA necessary, require a county election on removal. Sponsors said the bills create review mechanisms for subsequent AMAs.

Members raised several objections. Representative Liguori said voters had recently approved inclusion in a subsequent AMA and that a post‑designation petition mechanism could undercut the will of local voters. Representative Ligori (and others) said in the 35–40 years of AMAs only initial AMAs have met statutory improvement goals, and so a 10‑year review or the proposed thresholds may be too short or could create instability for agricultural users.

Related bills that address land divisions and lot sales — HB 2,090, HB 2,091, HB 2,092, HB 2,093 and HB 2,094 — were presented together. Sponsors said these measures seek to close the ‘‘wildcat subdivision’’ loophole by clarifying when separate conveyances or staggered sales should be counted collectively for compliance with subdivision and Assured Water Supply requirements. One bill (HB 2,090) would limit the prohibition on acting in concert to a 10‑year period; others would change disclosure and affidavit requirements for small land sales, modify penalties to apply per affected lot, and alter the definition of contiguous parcels.

Members signaled mixed views. Some said the bills would help protect groundwater by limiting circumvention of assured‑water‑supply rules; others worried the bills moved hastily and could be at odds with the Governor’s Water Council guidance or local voters’ choices. Representative Sandoval noted that some bills had stakeholder support from groups such as the Arizona Association of Realtors and opposition from environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Representative Liguori opposed several bills due to concerns that expanding eligibility or changing look‑back periods (from five to ten years in some drafts) materially alters grandfathering rules.

Other measures discussed included HB 2,551 (extended application window for the Wilcox AMA grandfathered rights) and HB 25‑70 (establishing temporary non‑expansion areas with restrictions on new groundwater withdrawals and irrigation for 10 years). Representative Ligori cautioned against preemptive extensions that could delay farmers’ certainty about water rights; she said ADWR was actively working with local users and a blanket extension could unnecessarily prolong uncertainty.

Ending: Sponsors and critics did not reach a caucus consensus; members asked for more stakeholder input and cross‑committee coordination, especially with ADWR and county supervisors, before any final caucus position.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02/04/2025 - House Democratic Caucus Calendar #2","oneSentenceSummary","A package of bills on subsequent active management areas, land division rules and groundwater protections prompted lengthy caucus discussion; sponsors said the measures would close loopholes and create review processes, while critics warned they could undercut recent voter actions and create uncertainty for farmers and rural communities.","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},6343757,"Arizona Democratic caucus debates bill that would bar cities from cutting police operating budgets below prior year levels",79,120000,199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f&start=120&end=199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f/thumbnail_120000.jpg","/articles/6343757/Arizona/Arizona-Democratic-caucus-debates-bill-that-would-bar-cities-from-cutting-police-operating-budgets-below-prior-year-levels","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343757-7dacae52a6f498a9c686c8a6f3ed1a90/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147902&Signature=XaiJYPzPlibHV7Z7c~7QYnHm4DNuIx0Mb2KNLmjISMHJbzOHLg65nPx4OI71MpwnmhDMDn29OnvMWGOKM5X8849Kd3w~P9ZzqIfamGaJNN8k-g-VVN1SimfuGO2MYyhA8uRErCj9avyspBhqkNTiFV-KxgWlU89ANy14drs8YDJBfLP3Hfy1DuzBcHJ0KhH6vLYZR2w7dK0inbrk63G3YjgRgIDUUeqsYpCn4cwzprNDwsxmVy2Ni80HsbhSHfwFQ6XHTmvRlegs3xF-MpTMhAe4H508ZKS32tn41nc29CAr3oURhQjvPBMP5dI5XfZo~LXWqvXGr8vT5qGmnByIWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Israel, sponsor of House Bill 22‑21, told the caucus the bill \"prohibits a city or town from reducing a law enforcement agency’s annual operating budget below the previous year's amount,\" while allowing an exception \"if they do not have funds required.\" Representative Israel said the bill also withholds state-shared revenues “until the reduction has been increased to the previous year's amount.”

The bill prompted pushback from members who said it did not account for legitimate local budgeting decisions. Ranking Member Cruz warned caucus members that the proposal “is penalizing local municipalities if they do not keep up with the current funding,” and urged colleagues to speak privately with public‑safety committee members about concerns.

One caucus member, speaking during discussion, described HB 22‑21 as “a very prescriptive measure that only looks at the previous year spending,” and said that focus on a single year creates a “very strong disincentive” to accept one‑time funding infusions for police departments because municipalities may be unable to sustain those higher spending levels in subsequent years. The same member also noted the bill references overall spending rather than sworn‑officer counts, and said that could encourage municipalities to move non‑sworn positions into police budgets rather than expand sworn officer ranks.

Supporters framed the bill as a protection against efforts to “defund the police,” while critics emphasized local budget flexibility and unintended consequences. No formal motion or vote was recorded during the caucus discussion.

Clarifying points raised in the meeting: the bill’s budget floor is measured against the prior fiscal year only (not a multi‑year average); it contains a financial enforcement mechanism tied to state shared revenues; and the exception language applies when a city or town \"does not have funds required\" to sustain the prior year's level, as the sponsor stated.

The caucus discussion did not settle members’ disagreements. Sponsors said they were available for follow‑up questions; critics asked for additional analysis on how the bill would affect municipal budgeting and the makeup of police department staffing.

Outside the caucus, the bill will follow the normal committee and floor process before any enactment or changes.

Ending: Members asked staff to share additional data and invited committee staff to meet privately with interested lawmakers to discuss municipal budget dynamics and policing‑related spending metrics.","Representative Israel told the caucus House Bill 22‑21 would bar cities and towns from reducing a law‑enforcement agency’s annual operating budget below the previous year’s level except where municipalities lack the funds, while opponents warned the measure is overly prescriptive and could discourage one‑time investments in public safety.",{"_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},6343737,"Caucus expresses strong opposition to multiple Republican election bills that would change early‑voting, ballot drop‑off and ballot‑processing rules",408,5984000,6392000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f&start=5984&end=6392","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f/thumbnail_5984000.jpg","/articles/6343737/Arizona/Caucus-expresses-strong-opposition-to-multiple-Republican-election-bills-that-would-change-earlyvoting-ballot-dropoff-and-ballotprocessing-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343737-1c23b051ee9b9d2e5fb975a13a959f26/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147902&Signature=CggF3vY7IFC~ATstuT4gdUEblpTnaj9qXo-OPdLe09-kQrPj7F6xXW700RjGV0bOSk8Vv6MT6supCjIxUzigoanMOjNpbfI8lN3GdZvDAqq4saclEMEdnfqLRu3sta8CjbN-kAwD7qL7u2luO~O-WOiBajgY1hTKbBwtByICpU2BaVZ7d8OqPsP~SDlj2Buxwmg2FI2i~kJKLrblgdmF9HMTBEtb3Xi2Wvaq5NHR4btpVWFoNSzncZ9yl9d338jBNKz7whzns0XyopfulsX3ype1z6znwMqNLVyQAc2n4FKECsfDUNz5wcLqVZFCAL75HZ13XFkg5iP6Vs4LFGeYUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Democratic caucus members discussed a suite of bills and ballot referrals (including House Bills 26‑73 and 27‑03 and House Concurrent Resolutions HCR 20‑13 and HCR 20‑02) that would change early‑voting windows, require periodic address confirmation for active early voters, restrict ballot drop‑off to county recorder offices after a Friday cutoff, and remove a county’s ability to decline to use a school as a polling location.

Representative Rhonda (sponsor) described key elements of the proposed measures, including prohibiting government entities from using donations from foreign governments for elections administration, allowing county recorders to operate on‑site early voting the weekend before election day (but not requiring them to do so), and creating an early‑voter identification number to be used on early ballot affidavits in some drafts. One bill would require active early‑voter address confirmation each cycle (or at two‑ or four‑year intervals depending on county size in some drafts).

Caucus members and ranking members strongly criticized the package. Representative Marquez said the legislation “disenfranchises students and snowbirds” and noted voting rights groups were opposed. Representative Garcia labeled the package “a terrible bill” and said it does not address accessibility and may cherry‑pick precinct coverage that leaves many voters behind. Several members raised specific concerns about schools: one caucus member said last week they had spoken to school superintendents who warned that using school campuses as polling places could create safety and logistical problems, particularly for rural campuses without controlled access.

Representative Rhonda and others noted some bills permit weekend early voting but do not require it; critics said that permissive language could create inconsistent access across counties. The governor’s office publicly opposed one of the measures and signaled a likely veto of a bill sent to the governor’s desk without compromise.

The caucus did not take a formal vote in the meeting; members emphasized voting rights groups’ opposition and asked for coalition and stakeholder organizing.

Ending: Caucus members said they would continue to coordinate with voting rights organizations and county election officials in advance of any committee actions, and referenced the governor’s statement opposing the bills.","House bills and concurrent resolutions that would limit ballot drop‑off, add address verification and alter early‑voting windows prompted sustained caucus criticism; members and the governor raised concerns about voter access, school safety at polling sites, and potential burdens on counties.",{"_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},6343747,"‘Starter Home Act’ draws split reactions in caucus over planning preemption and affordability",100,2465000,2565000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f&start=2465&end=2565","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f/thumbnail_2465000.jpg","/articles/6343747/Arizona/Starter-Home-Act-draws-split-reactions-in-caucus-over-planning-preemption-and-affordability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343747-9e68e669427109d545a53e1875f4f761/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147902&Signature=WgCfC1XD~7Yi1ZPjEB0HCb4QzK9IX1nipx00KjJSvig7dpGZZRXhAnCeo4Ur5lzmdBy6b5~FMpXYXJfERxLX6F9TXvcB7X8PTNMuIpNe3wdfaw46WhOHe9qZly~5qc1T2OCnaERiu9iG5cH-8vVkcekL3FcFH1F7GqtEEsbMXi9BYiOgvbJdr8sseRo2p5USyihQ9X~rnMCZPlGL4qS5t8tx9vhy0SjnHpgv1bN6lCQZzWp86e0ZY-JusyHneRVkFMKkQYaHe1tcNT9y~luUdPO1pguzsmOduUXiDOQQMeEVpdg2LU6IowHFu2Ob0Gqonrbg76YFc6WXc03DrPeBvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sponsor Representative Aguilar introduced House Bill 2,371, the Starter Home Act, saying supporters believe the measure \"will allow prices\" to fall and make it cheaper to build single‑family homes, which could improve affordability. The sponsor described the bill as protecting a home buyer's right to choose home features, amenities, structures, floor plans and interior and exterior designs, and as restricting municipalities from enforcing certain residential zoning rules that limit building materials or design elements.

Several caucus members opposed the bill or said they would vote no. Representative Connolly said she was \"concerned about the bill\" and that it \"flies in the face\" of long‑established general planning processes; she said the legislation could undermine municipal planning efforts that take years to develop. Representative Villegas said the bill appears to be a preemption measure and noted it \"doesn't talk about housing affordability and how that's going to occur,\" adding that in his district the city has used zoning tools to encourage affordability that this bill would prevent.

Representative Covero, who voted for the bill in committee, said the bill’s drafting raised issues about definitions — for example an arbitrary population threshold for affordable housing (70,000) — and suggested caucus and committee members hold an offline discussion to refine definitions and address rural needs. Representative Liguori asked for additional data to inform whether the bill would achieve its affordability goals.

Caucus discussion focused on process and scope: opponents emphasized that the bill could preempt local zoning and planning authority without including mechanisms to produce affordable units, and they asked for more concrete affordability metrics and protections for rural communities. Supporters urged further discussion and suggested potential amendments.

No formal vote occurred during the caucus meeting. Members requested additional analysis and an offline caucus discussion to explore technical fixes and empirical evidence on how the bill would affect construction costs in different market contexts.

Ending: Sponsors and critics agreed to continue the conversation off the floor, with members asking staff for modeling or data that compares local planning approaches with the bill’s expected effects on housing costs.","House Bill 2,371 (Starter Home Act) would limit municipal restrictions on residential building materials, features and design to ease construction costs. Caucus members split: sponsors argued the bill could lower single‑family prices; opponents said it preempts local planning and omits concrete affordability measures.",{"_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},6343752,"Democratic caucus debates bill to require summer special‑education evaluations; members raise cost and ESA implications",301,941000,1242000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f&start=941&end=1242","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251763-1aa4337f0cd4911e6c9e68548911c69f/thumbnail_941000.jpg","/articles/6343752/Arizona/Democratic-caucus-debates-bill-to-require-summer-specialeducation-evaluations-members-raise-cost-and-ESA-implications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343752-0396607803abbb4739153a93285f20bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147902&Signature=TEB5C1AA56F0y9khO3bKkARFKslXCCwqqnSEvaXvTc9XRlj6mqNNaLtVxmjfEPrKWFbSWRhNClg5NqV1QTvfBfOHrI1j-pZTxHkqxaTANds9h6-0HUcwDr3sF1Pt6srZ3sz5kJI0dLKkvkCmRW9QSvf99NFEcq4mHcgoHdpsZX4p2xg2Eg2eiyQY2MLMjdqVtFPatLaFRDe67MAHLf0gu35SPFtDx7fZz8-Cd0AHtJgeV17o8tvFuPgGqkdS~ABdyfg-Vz7Jchtt0sLymOOikoMmmbz2CmXjDtJItzy74BNVbhGVUvVUAaM8kdcBDqc~8ifWqzQatq~U0~qFiqT3sw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sponsor Michael (Representative Michael Lynn) told the caucus House Bill 2,375 (as amended) \"requires a home school district to begin a special education evaluation or provide written notice of refusal within 15 calendar days for any written special education evaluation request that is submitted by a parent between May 1 and August 15.\" He added the measure would make the temporary timeline apply specifically \"over the summer.\"

Several members said that timing posed operational problems. A caucus member who identified themselves as a school official said during discussion that \"schools are not open in the summer. They cannot start a special ed evaluation within 15 days if the parents request it at the end of the school year.\" The member noted that school psychologists and related staff often work on 10‑month contracts and are not paid year‑round, and that districts lack capacity to perform evaluations during the summer at the same rate as during the school year.

Representative Michael Lynn and multiple colleagues acknowledged a related federal 60‑day timeline for evaluations once a district accepts an evaluation request during the school year, and said the bill’s 15‑calendar‑day summer timeline was different and would likely impose additional burdens on districts. One caucus member, speaking as ranking member on appropriations, criticized what they described as an approach that could be inconsistent with other legislative priorities: \"The Republicans eagerly want to defund services for children with autism and children with Down Syndrome by defunding DDD and AltEX. I think that is heinous and ridiculous…\" (remarks summarized in caucus discussion).

Another substantive concern raised in the caucus: the evaluation can be used by families to obtain documentation that could increase ESA funding. Representative Pete Contreras asked for confirmation of the process by which a public‑school evaluation could be used by a family to seek a higher level of ESA funding; the sponsor confirmed that under current statute a private‑school student may receive a public‑school evaluation and use the resulting documentation when applying for ESA adjustments, and that this bill would allow that evaluation to be obtained over the summer specifically.

A caucus member also supplied an approximate cost figure: one participant said the districts’ evaluation costs are \"about approximately $500 per student\" and that districts are not reimbursed for that cost and instead \"are eating that cost.\" Another member raised questions about whether services that flow from an IEP (speech, occupational therapy, etc.) would automatically follow from a summer evaluation and whether districts would be reimbursed for those services should a student later transfer to an ESA school; the sponsor said he would follow up with additional information.

No committee motion or vote was taken during the caucus meeting. Members asked staff and the sponsor for follow‑up information on funding, timelines and the administrative details for how summer evaluations would be scheduled and funded.

Ending: Caucus members requested additional written information about the operational feasibility, estimated per‑student costs, and the relationship between public evaluations and ESA eligibility before any final caucus position is taken.

","House Bill requiring school districts to start special‑education evaluations within 15 calendar days for requests made between May 1 and Aug. 15 drew sustained caucus concern about feasibility, district staffing, costs and whether evaluation results could be used to seek Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Caucus hears a package of water‑policy bills on subsequent AMAs, wildcat subdivisions and temporary protections; members express divided views

Arizona Democratic caucus debates bill that would bar cities from cutting police operating budgets below prior year levels

Caucus expresses strong opposition to multiple Republican election bills that would change early‑voting, ballot drop‑off and ballot‑processing rules

‘Starter Home Act’ draws split reactions in caucus over planning preemption and affordability

Democratic caucus debates bill to require summer special‑education evaluations; members raise cost and ESA implications