Committee gives due‑pass recommendations on six bills from board makeup to starter homes; rezoning, third‑party reviews draw debate

The Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency Committee advanced several bills on Feb. 4, issuing due‑pass recommendations on measures ranging from board membership structure to rezoning and starter‑home rules. Committee action included adoption of amendments on more than one bill and several contentious hearings, most notably for Senate Bill 12‑29 on starter homes.

Why it matters: The package touches public‑facing areas — professional licensing structures, local permitting, building code administration and land‑use rules — that can change how quickly developments are reviewed, how state risk is managed and how housing is built. Several measures drew competing testimony from municipal officials, trade groups and business‑attraction advocates.

What the committee did (high‑level) - SB 12‑35 (boards): Restructures certain health‑profession regulatory boards to increase the number of public members and reduce professional majorities; received a due‑pass recommendation after testimony and discussion (committee tally: 4 ayes, 3 noes, 0 not voting). Senator Schamp sponsored the bill and argued the change reduces the state’s antitrust exposure and improves oversight; she cited a $10 million notice of claim against the Arizona Chiropractic Board as an example of risk.

- SB 12‑86 (county administrative approvals): Allows county boards of supervisors by ordinance to authorize administrative personnel to review and approve subdivision assurances and other technical documents (due pass; recorded committee vote: 6 ayes, 0 no, 1 not voting). Michael Rossi of Pima County testified the change corrects an earlier omission and would speed approvals.

- SB 13‑48 (fire code review in small towns): Allows cities/towns of 3,000 or fewer residents to have plans and specifications reviewed by a person knowledgeable in the state fire code rather than requiring direct state forester review; the committee gave it a due‑pass recommendation (7 ayes, 0 no). Senator Gowen said the change responds to rural workload and staffing limits at the state fire marshal’s office; Dante Mitchell of the Department of Forestry and Fire Management noted phased permitting is currently allowed in the state fire code and asked for continued collaboration.

- SB 13‑52 (rezoning and referendum): Deems approval of a municipal or county rezoning application an administrative act that is not subject to referendum and applies retroactively to July 1, 2024; the committee adopted a 12‑page Bullock amendment and gave a due‑pass recommendation as amended (committee tally: 5 ayes, 2 noes). Supporters including Chris Camacho of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said the change provides certainty for large economic projects and prevents out‑of‑state groups from derailing locally approved rezonings; opponents warned about narrowing local referendum rights and urged compromise.

- SB 13‑53 (third‑party permit reviews and related municipal timelines): As amended by the Bullock amendment the bill authorizes third‑party reviews for building permit applications if a municipality does not act within specified time frames (amendment removed third‑party inspections); it received a due‑pass recommendation (4 ayes, 3 noes). Builders’ and economic development witnesses argued the measure speeds permitting; municipal witnesses cautioned about public‑health, certificate‑of‑occupancy language and conflict‑of‑interest protections for third parties.

- SB 12‑29 (Starter Homes/Zoning changes): A broad and highly contested measure that limits municipal authority to adopt minimum lot sizes and design standards for many new developments (applies to new subdivisions of 5 acres or more and contains exceptions). The committee gave the bill a due‑pass recommendation after an extensive hearing and robust public testimony (vote: 5 ayes, 2 noes). Supporters, including local housing advocates and the Home Builders Association, described the bill as a means to increase supply and lower entry‑level prices; municipal leaders including Buckeye Mayor Eric Osborne and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns expressed strong opposition, citing infrastructure, water, public‑safety and long‑term planning concerns.

Key testimony and friction points - Board membership (SB 12‑35): Sponsor Senator Schamp framed the change as a way to reduce legal risk after the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC precedent; she said boards have “lost sight of their foundational purpose” and cited audits and complaints. Opponents said in some specialized boards professional expertise matters for technical adjudication. The committee discussed stakeholder meetings following the hearing.

- Rezoning referendum limits (SB 13‑52): Chris Camacho (Greater Phoenix Economic Council) emphasized economic development certainty, referencing a high‑profile local project and saying uncertainty leads firms to consider alternatives: “When we talk about the...project, 5,500 jobs...the economic impacts...in excess of $40 billion.” Opponents and some senators pressed that limiting referendums narrows direct voter recourse and urged more nuance or higher thresholds.

- Starter homes/zoning (SB 12‑29): The longest hearing included mayors, builders, neighborhood advocates and trade groups. Supporters argued regulatory limits have made small starter homes effectively illegal and that increasing supply will ease prices. Jake Hinman of the Arizona Neighborhood Project said, “The Arizona Starter Homes Act directly addresses affordability on two main fronts: increasing supply and allowing types of housing that are more affordable for the next generation.” Mayor Eric Osborne of Buckeye said the bill “is the wrong approach” for rapidly growing cities and warned of water, transportation and public‑safety strain. Nick Ponder of the League said the state’s traditional development process is a “three‑legged stool” (municipal planners, developers, residents) and expressed concern that the bill removes municipal planning authority.

What’s next Most bills that received a due‑pass recommendation will be scheduled for floor consideration; committee members on several items urged continued stakeholder meetings to refine language — for example on third‑party reviewer lists, certificate‑of‑occupancy language, water availability and corporate purchase limits for starter‑home units.

Votes at a glance (committee tallies) - SB 12‑35 (boards restructuring): Due pass recommendation — 4 ayes, 3 noes, 0 not voting. - SB 12‑86 (county administrative approvals): Due pass recommendation — 6 ayes, 0 no, 1 not voting. - SB 13‑48 (fire code/local review): Due pass recommendation — 7 ayes, 0 no, 0 not voting. - SB 13‑52 (rezoning/referendum; as amended): Due pass recommendation — 5 ayes, 2 noes, 0 not voting. - SB 13‑53 (third‑party permit reviews; amended to remove third‑party inspections): Due pass recommendation — 4 ayes, 3 noes, 0 not voting. - SB 12‑29 (starter‑home zoning changes): Due pass recommendation — 5 ayes, 2 noes, 0 not voting.

Committee members signaled several follow‑up items for staff and sponsors, including stakeholder meetings and drafting clarifying language before floor action.