Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2006 Blue Sheet State Legislative Issues TOWN COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION TOWN OF MARANA MEETING DAE: June 20, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: K. 1 TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Michael A. Reuwsaat, Town Manager SUBJECT: State Let!islative Issues: Discussion/Direction/Action regarding all pending bills before the Legislature DISCUSSION This item is scheduled for each regular council Meeting in order to provide an opportunity to discuss any legislative item that might arise during the current session of the State Legislature. Periodically, an oral report may be given to supplement the Legislative Bulletins. ATTACHMENTS Legislative Bulletin, Issue 21 and supporting documents. RECOMMENDATION Upon the request of Council, staff will be pleased to provide recommendations on specific legislative issues. SUGGESTED MOTION Mayor and Council's pleasure. JCB/06/14/2006/2:48 PM IN THIS ISSU E State Budget Stalled This Week...................1 Liquor Bill To Go To Conference Committee A Third Time .... 1 Eminent Domain Bill Vetoed By The Governor. . . . . . . . . . . 2 Governor Vetos Immigration Bill......................2 Governor Signs Weapons Storage Bill .....................2 Attachments: Copy Legislative Alert Budget Key Messages The League of Arizona Cities & Towns Opposes HB2621 Eminent Domain Veto Letter Immigration Veto Letter League of Arizona ~I~ Cities AND Towns Legislative Bul/etin is published by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Forward your comments or suggestions to: League of Arizona Cities & Towns 1820 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Phone: 602-258-5786 Fax: 602-253-3874 Emai1: league@mg.state.az.us Internet: www.azleague.org LEG IS LA liVE BU LLEll N Issue No. 21 June 9, 2006 * ACTION ALERT * STATE BUDGET STALLED THIS WEEK Due to a lack of consensus between the House and Senate Majority, and to the absence of many legislators this week, there have been no new developments since the Senate passed amended versions of the House budget the previous week. The House and Senate passed versions both include a 10% income tax cut, with an appropriation to hold us harmless from a decrease in urban revenue sharing. However, this appropriation would only delay the reduction for one year, and cities and towns would be subject to a permanent 10% reduction starting in 2010. State shared revenue was enacted by the voters as a percentage of revenue and was not meant to become an appropriation by the Legislature. The precedent in this situation is to adjust the percentage in order to keep our distributions unaffected by state adjustments to the state tax base. Action Requested: Please act on the attached alert document in order to spread our message and protect state shared revenues. LIQUOR BILL TO GO TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE A THIRD TIME HB2621, the new vehicle for the liquor bill that allows restaurants with as little as 30% food sales to continue operating with a restaurant license, is being taken back to conference committee for a third time to clarify the cap set on the number of licenses. The proponent of the bill states that only 15 of the waivers created in this bill can be issued in both FY 06-07 and 07-08, and then the waivers can no longer be granted. Other stakeholders, including the League, believe the number is capped in those two fiscal years and then becomes unlimited. An opinion drafted by Legislative Council at the request of Rep. McCune Davis affirms our position, the waivers can be granted after FY 07-08 in an unlimited number. The proponents of the bill have indicated that they will again take this bill back to conference committee to clarify this provision. Its our understanding that the clarification will state that 15 waivers may be granted in each of the two years and that the department may not issue any more beyond that. Even if this bill becomes a two-year 'pilot project', it still has several major flaws that will affect neighborhoods and our ability to ensure public safety. Please see our attached fact sheet, which outlines the current version of the bill. EMINENT DOMAIN BILL VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR The Governor vetoed HB2675, Sen. Chuck Gray's slum clearance bill that the Senate passed outside of our agreement for a compromise. This bill retroactively eliminated current redevelopment areas and removed our ability to condemn blighted areas. The bill also required that every piece of the area be slum in order to redevelop it, rather than a preponderance of them. Her veto message is attached. Another bill or ballot referral dealing with eminent domain reform is likely to be considered this session. We have alternative language that represents a sensible approach to safeguarding property while still allowing cities and towns to judiciously condemn property as necessary to curb the crime, vandalism and other public safety threats that are very common in slum and blighted areas. We will keep you informed of new developments. GOVERNOR VETOES IMMIGRATION BILL Governor Napolitano vetoed HB2577, which dealt with immigration reform, on Tuesday. This bill required local governments to enforce federal immigration laws and provided funding to cover some of those costs. The bill also required cities and towns to contract with the federal government to train officers in federal immigration enforcement. Her veto message is attached for your information. The Legislature is considering sending an immigration reform package to the ballot by passing a resolution rather than sending another bill to the Governor. It is very clear that there will be additional legislative activity on this issue this session. Federal immigration reform also appears to be at an impasse, with the u.s. House and Senate each passing very different versions of reform legislation. The House proposal focuses only on border enforcement while the Senate version creates a new guest worker program. The issue is now being debated in conference committee. GOVERNOR SIGNS WEAPONS STORAGE BILL Governor Napolitano signed HB2076 this week. This bill requires public establishments or the sponsor of a public event to provide an accessible, temporary and secure storage facility for weapons. This provision does not apply if the establishment or event has a liquor license or permit issued. In addition, the bill was amended to limit the liability of operators, sponsors, agents and employees for returning weapons unless their action is intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent. This bill also allows persons to carry a deadly weapon within the map pocket of a vehicle without a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This bill becomes effective 90 days after the end of the legislative session. LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN June2,2006 PAGE 2 STATE OF ARIZONA JANET NAPOLITANO GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR MAIN PHONE: 602-542-4331 FACSIMILE: 602-542-7601 1700 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, PHOENIX, AZ 85007 June 6, 2006 The Honorable Jim Weiers Speaker of the House Arizona House of Representatives 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Re: House Bill 2675: slum clearance Dear Speaker Weiers: Today I vetoed House Bill 2675, which would have tern1inated all existing slum clearance and redevelopment areas and inappropriately restricted the ability of cities to deal with slums and urban blight. Current Arizona law generally protects the legitimate rights of property owners while still enabling cities and neighborhoods to reduce urban blight, crime and slum conditions. Without such a balance, slum areas can go unabated and become epicenters of criminal and gang activity. While I oppose the use of eminent domain power to benefit private economic interests, tIus bill goes too far in restricting a city's ability to deal with slums and gangs. It removes local control, sets up a needlessly complex bureaucratic process for redevelopment efforts, and creates inappropriate impediments to communities looking to make their neighborhoods safe and productive. This bill was subject to much negotiation, but was adopted before the completion of a consensus agreement among the major stakeholders in this issue. To the extent that any change in current law is deemed necessary, I would urge the proponents of this legislation to return in good faith to the bargaining table and negotiate a more workable bill for next session that does not have so many unintended consequences. For these and other reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 2675. Yours very truly, {JJ ;1 r.$~ Ja(1t Napolitano Governor IN:TN/jrn cc: The Honorable Ken Bennett The Honorable Chuck Gray League of Arizona ~.~ Cities AND Towns 1820 W. 'Washington Slrt't't. Phoenix., AZ 85\)(17 .Phol\C: (6(2) 258.5786 .Pi!ll<: (002) 253.3874 Email: lL.llgu~.@mg.stllte.az.us . WWsite: W\\'W.wJellgue.org The league of AZ Cities and Towns OPPOSES HB2621: illegal liquor sales: liability The League opposes HB2621, which was amended in conference committee to increase the allowable alcohol sales for certain restaurants to more than 70% of total receipts (this concept was first introduced in HB2740). This bill contradicts efforts by neighborhoods, cities and the DLLC to eliminate bars operating under the disguise of a restaurant. These 'hybrid' establishments are exempted from maintaining the 40% food sales currently required for restaurant licensees. They may even have less than 30% food sales and be permitted to maintain lower food sales indefinitely by consent agreement. If the Director believes the establishment sells at least than 30% food, this 'waiver' can be granted without an audit to determine the actual food sales percentage. The establishments that qualify for these 'waivers' are already a problem for neighborhoods and law enforcement. Audits are a result of complaints, not random chance. With only 2 auditors monitoring more than 2800 restaurants, only .07% are audited per year. These establishments may operate within 300 ft. of schools and churches. Bars are currently prohibited from this area because of the impact their high alcohol sales have on sensitive institutions. Two additional auditors are not sufficient to enforce this new process. 4 auditors can review 1.7% of all restaurants statewide. Neighborhoods would benefit from any additional enforcement of current liquor laws. However, adding these new loopholes will negate any affects additional enforcement could have on protecting neighborhoods. The reporting requirements are ineffective without a review committee or a sunset. The cap on the number of these licenses is inadequate since it expires after 2 years with no review of the effects an unlimited number of these establishments will have on neighborhoods. The League, along with its member cities and towns, does not want to see good neighborhood restaurants go out of business. The sponsor and other stakeholders refused the amendment language we offered that would allow these establishments a second chance while closing the loopholes that HB2621 now creates. We are willing to work with the stakeholders over the interim to draft a better solution than HB2621. PLEASE CONSIDER THE IMPACTS THESE ESTABLISHMENTS WILL HAVE ON NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE ASK THAT YOU OPPOSE HB2621. APACIf; JUNCTlOfol .' AVONllALE . Il9ISON . BISBEE . SlX:1<M . BUU.IEAO CfIY . CAMP VEIlDE . CNlEFlI:e . CASA GIlANIE . CAVE Cl!E8( . CHANDlER . CHINO VAU.eY . Cl.NlKDAlE . Cl.IFl'ON COl.ORAllO CfIY . COOlIDGE . COTTOIMtlOO . OEWEY+ItJMllOU)T . DOllGLAS . Dl.INCAN . EAGAR . El MIRAGE .. Q,OV . FlAG$l'AfF . FU'lRENCe . FOUNTAIN ltU.S . FRSlONIA . GIlA llEtIl . Gll.8ERT OCENllALE . Gl.OBE .0000YeAR . GUADAUlI'E . kA\'OOl . HOl.I'lI'KXlK '. i<<lACHUCA CfIY . JI1ROlE . KeARNY . 1ONl.lMAN . lAKE kAVASlI CfIY . lJ1'CHF1Eltl PAll( . MAI&lOTH. . loIAIWlA . lWlICO!'A . MESA IlAMI .l<<:lGALES . OROVAU.eY . PAGe. PARNllSEYAU.eY . PARKeR .PAT.I4ONlA . PAmI< . PEORIA. fIl1OEHI)( . PIMA . ~. P!lESCOrt. P!lESCOrtVAUEY .'QllARTZSlTE . 00EEHCRee< SAl'fORO . SAlltIAIllTA ..SAN WS. SCOTTSlW.E . SElXlNA. SHClWLCW . SIEl1RA \/ISTA . ~ . llO'Il!FlTON . $OlJl'!i'lUC$OH . Sf'RINGl!RYIlI.E . sr. JOHNS . SUl'l1RIOR . SVRPRllll! . TA'll.OR . Tl!UI'E TkATCIiEfI. TOI.I..ESON . TOIl8STONE . 'lUC$OH . WEll.TON . WICKelBt.flG . WlI..tCOX . WlLl.lAMS . ~ . WINSLOW . "IOUNG'IOWN . 'IUMA STATE OF ARIZONA JANET NAPOLITANO GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR MAIN PHONE: 602-542-4331 FACSIMILE: 602-542-7601 1700 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, PHOENI~.. AZ 85007 June 6, 2006 The Honorable Jim Weiers Speaker of the House Arizona House of Representatives 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Re: House Bill 2577: immigration law; employment; enforcement Dear Speaker Weiers: Today I vetoed House Bill 2577, a weak and ineffective illegal immigration bill that offers complete amnesty to employers, violates the constitution, and is overwhelmingly opposed by law enforcement and top border elected officials in the state. Recently, we have made a number of positive first strides in combating illegal inunigration. These include finally prevailing upon the Bush Administration to send thousands of federally-funded National Guard members to the border; enacting tough new human smuggling legislation; prosecuting the money launderers who fund illegal crossings; and the recent and on-going arrests by my fraudulent ill task force, including the arrests of over 100 persons suspected of large-scale immigration document forgery. But House Bill 2577 is a step backwards. It offers no constructive new ideas and instead is filled with unworkable or unconstitutional provisions that I have previously objected to or vetoed. Indeed, your failure to work with me to develop a more comprehensive bill, coupled with your unilateral decision to stock this bill full of provisions you know are opposed by our border communities, law enforcement agencies, and me, confirms that you view this bill more as a political game than as a serious effort to protect the border. Nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called employer "sanction" provisions of this bill. Despite my repeated calls for meaningful employer sanctions, House Bill 2577 offers full amnesty to any employer who hires an illegal immigrant and gets caught. All the employer must do to claim this amnesty is fire the illegal worker within 10 days of receiving a cease and desist order from the Attorney General. Under this bill, an employer that simply complies with the order upon receipt pays no fine, risks no jail time, and can continue with normal business operations as if nothing has happened. Moreover, it is unlikely that an employer will even receive a cease and desist order because the bill fails to appropriate anything close to the estimated $11 million the Attorney General needs to audit annually five percent of all employers in the state, as the bill purports to require. To make matters worse, this bill illdemllifies any employer against lawsuits brought by employees they fire after a cease and desist order is issued. These remarkable and unprecedented <.,....._~,~""~".-.-~._"',''''''.'''',-,~,.._~......~'''',., The Honorable Jim Weiers June 6, 2006 Page 2 provisions would force the taxpayer to pay not only any damages that are awarded against the employer, but also the employer's attorneys' fees incurred defending the action. Moreover, the taxpayer would have to pay these fees even if the employee who sues was in fact here illegally. The costs of these overbroad provisions are uncapped and could easily end up exceeding ten million dollars. If anything, these provisions encourage, rather than deter, illegal hiring in Arizona. Real sanctions are supposed to mean the lawbreaker pays a penalty, not that he gets paid by taxpayers. Arizona should never be in the business of defending one lawbreaker (the employer) against a lawsuit brought by another (the illegal immigrant). To do otherwise would be to send a clarion call to crossers and unscrupulous employers alike: "Come to Arizona, where our legislature fosters an illegal underground labor market by holding employers completely harmless for illegal hiring." I have told you repeatedly that I am willing to work with you to develop comprehensive ilmnigration reform ~at provides not only real sanctions against illegal hiring but also the resources our local law enforcement needs to playa meaningful role. My budget in particular calls for such funding, and I remain serious about providing it, so long as it is through an appropriate funding vehicle, such as the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs or the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. In the meantime, I will continue to work with state and local law enforcement, elected officials, the National Guard, and the federal Department of Homeland Security to secure Arizona's southern border. Without a strong employer sanctions provision, your bill hinders rather than helps these efforts. For these and other reasons, including those set forth in my April 25, 2006 veto message regarding Senate Bill 1157, I have vetoed House Bill 2577. Yours very truly, J ~~;~ ~~emor IN:T AN/jm cc: Hon. Ken Bennett Hon. Russell Pearce June 8, 2006 Dear Mayors and Managers: Budget discussions at the state legislature are at a critical point and we now have an urgent need to make our voices heard. Please contact your legislators in the next 2-3 days and let them know that the decisions they are making nowwill have an impact for many years to come on the citizens they represent in our state's cities and towns. Attached are some talking points that may be useful for your discussions with legislators; please feel free to choose those items that are most appropriate for your city and are consistent with your opinions. We also request that you ask council members, civic groups, local chambers and other leaders in your community to assist in contacting legislators. In addition, please contact your local media with letters to the editor and stories regarding the impact budget reductions will have on your community. Our collective voices need to be heard at the legislature during this crucial time. E-mail is an important tool, and when followed up with phone calls they are even more effective. Please do not delay sending these messages. You can find contact information by looking under House and Senate on the legislative website: htto:/ /www.azleq.state.az.us/. Legislators may tell you that they do plan on holding cities and towns harmless. The current plans that have passed both the House and Senate only hold cities and towns harmless for one year and then reduce our shared revenue 10% permanently. We need to stress to our legislators to hold us harmless permanently and not to include state shared revenue in the proposed tax cuts. As you contact your legislators, please let us know of their response or other important information from the exchange. Thank you for your part in helping make Arizona cities and towns healthy for the future. If you have any questions, please let us know. League of Arizona Cities and Towns 1820 W. Washington Sl. Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602-258-5786 Fax: 602-253-3874 http://www.azleaQue.orQ June 7,2006 Talking Points on City Finances and the State Budget . Arizona Cities and Towns are responsible important local services that citizens value highly-police, fire, water, parks, libraries, streets, strong neighborhoods, building inspections, local quality of life. The state does not provide these local services. . Most Cities and Towns, unlike the state government, are NOT experiencing a surplus of revenues at the local level. In fact, the rapidly increasing population which is helping to produce the revenue surplus at the state, is requiring MORE local services, resulting in higher costs to local government. · Arizona cities and towns have helped to produce the state budget surplus by providing attractive places for people to live and for businesses to thrive. In a ballot measure approved by Arizona voters, we gave up our right to enact local income and luxury taxes in 1972 in exchange for the certainty of 15% of revenue from state income taxes. Reductions in local revenue would be like killing the goose that is laying the golden egg. · The cost of providing local services is increasing faster than the rate of inflation plus population. Some of those driving forces are: health insurance, retirement costs, construction materials, staffing for additional fire stations, police officers, etc. State shared revenue provides approximately 30-40% of the typical Arizona city's general fund. · Police and fire services are often mentioned as possible items for reduction for a very good reason-they are the largest general fund expenditure category. You cannot make budget reductions without affecting public safety services. · State revenues have increased this year because of a strong economy, but only a few years ago revenues were down substantially. This is typical of economic cycles; no one has paid a higher tax rate. Event though times are good now, there will be an inevitable downturn in the future. Cities and towns voluntarily reduced their shared revenue percentage when times were bad; we are asking to be held whole in the future if the legislature makes permanent income tax rate cuts. · State officials are elected to manage state activities; Mayors and Council members are elected to manage local activities, but we are dependent on state lawmakers to honor the trust established by the voter- approved measure that created urban revenue sharing since we do not have a seat at the table. We have to trust them to do the right thing. . Legislators and Mayors represent the same people, the same taxpayers. Reductions at the state level would require shifting to higher local taxes since basic services still have to be provided. . There are ninety cities and towns in Arizona and all have unique tax and budget situations, different from each other as well as the State. Many have already cut or limited local taxes. However, it is highly inappropriate and bad public policy to unilaterally impose a uniform revenue cut on all ninety regardless of their unique budget circumstances. . Tax cuts have been historically used to stimulate a sluggish economy and to reduce overly high tax rates as was the case with the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s. The situation in Arizona is very different. Overall we are a low tax state, and our economy is currently very strong. · Residents are more concerned with property taxes than with income tax rates. In light of that situation, cities and towns are not opposing a proposal to reset the property tax base year from 1979 to 2005, even though that step eliminates millions of dollars in taxing capacity.