Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Commerce — Report of Regular Meeting, February 18, 2020 (Fifty-fourth Legislature, Second Regular Session)

Summary

Minutes of the regular meeting of the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, Fifty-fourth Legislature, Second Regular Session, held Tuesday, February 18, 2020, with Mr. Weninger as Chairman and Mr. Grantham as Vice-Chairman. The meeting convened at 3:46 P.M. and adjourned at 7:15 P.M., and the minutes record committee action on bills including HB2311 on wireless providers, HB2823 on ambulance interfacility transfers and HB2522 on bingo licenses and taxes. Attachments include the original agenda, a Request to Speak report listing organizations and individuals registering support, opposition or neutral positions on each bill, and a committee attendance report. The record closes with proposed amendments to H.B. 2841 on municipal zoning and a housing overlay, and the roll call vote on HB 2841.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
Report of Regular Meeting

Tuesday, February 18, 2020
House [Hearing Room --2:00 P.M.

Convened 3:46P.M.
tecessed

ir let

teconvened
Adjourned 7:15 P.M.
MINUTES RECEIVED
Members Present CHIEF CLERK’S OFFICE
Mr. Biasiueci CC
Ms. Butler 2. -al- o-
Mr. Chavez
Ms. Epstein
Mr. Kern
Mr. Meza
Mr. Roberts
Mr. Grantham, Vice-Chairman
Mr. Weninger, Chairman

Agenda
Original Agenda — Attachment 1

Request to Speak
Report — Attachment 2

Committee Attendance
Report - Attachment 3

Comnnittee Action
Bill Action
HB2311 DP
HB2400 DPA/SE
HB2522 DPA/SE
HB2876 DP
HB2823 DPA
HB2826 DP
HB2853 DPA
HB2813) DP
HB2446 DPA
HB2635 DPA
HB284} DPA

<
=]
-
a]

Attachments

14, 15, 16, 17, 18
19, 20
21, 22, 23

24, 25, 26, 27
28, 29, 30

31, 32, 33

34, 35, 36

Lec Prenat

Iris tase Committee Secretary
February 21, 2020

(Original attachments on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk; video archives available at http:/Avww.azleg.gov)

NPONN SEES SSP
PES PPSerer?r?e
NNNNWOWODOR eR

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
February 18, 2020
Convered : FA Gem

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TIME 2:00 P.M.

ae: binges corde | cerita, | tates

Strike Everything Title

contest tte

He: Blockchain owed ex pplocr ere
aernd-y

DATE Tuesday, February 18, 2020 ROOM HHR3
Members:
Mr. Biasiucci Ms. Epstein Mr. Roberts
Ms. Butler Mr. Kern Mr. Grantham, Vice-Chairman
Mr. Chavez Mr. Meza Mr. Weninger, Chairman
Bills Short Title
| HB2311 g- ool wireless providers; authority; applicability
———____. (Dunn: Osborne, Kerr)
DP a COM, RULES
2 **HB2400 technical correction; self-service storage; notice
foo co-t ce
q HB2446 4) ep ror’ simulcast dog racing; wagering; time
7600" (Pierce: Finchem)
D fp ft COM, RULES
3 *HB2522 q 0-079 bingo; licenses; taxes.
4 oad
——eee (Lieberman: Dunn)
y P Ase COM, RULES
/O *HB2635 p - 2+ mobile home parks; caregivers
| PX maa (Blackman: Bolick}
Df A? COM held 0-0-0-0-0, RULES
A HB2813 a 2-0-2 sports betting; historic racing; revenue
——__————- (Pierce: Borrelli)
D Dh COM, APPROP, RULES
5 HB2823 @o-0-0 0-0-0 ambulance service; interfacility transfers
we?

¢ **11B2826

DPA
67 0-0-3

DP

————- (Weninger: Barto, Carroll, et al)

COM, RULES

tobacco; vaping; penalties; legal age

(Osborne)

Page 1 of 2

Attachment f
Bills Short Title

! { **HB284 | o- 2, municipal zoning; housing overlay
“A= (Kern)

DPA

d **HB2853 if Q-o- furnishing tobacco; minors; enterprise penalties
———— (Bolick: Blackman)

DLA

Strike Everything Title

4 2020/0 (Weninger: Allen J, Biasiucci, et al)

*% If printed, first read and assigned
* On previous agenda

ORDER OF BILLS TO BE SET BY THE CHAIRMAN

im
02/12/2020

People with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations such as interpreters, alternative formats, or
assistance with physical accessibility. If you require accommodations, please contact the Chief Clerk's Office at

(602) 926-3032 or through Arizona Relay Service 7-1-1.

Page 2 of 2

Information Registered on the Request to Speak System

House Commerce (2/18/2020)

HB23171, wireless providers; authority; applicability

Testified in support:

Rodney Short, YUMA, CITY OF

Support:
Jen Springman, GREATER PHOENIX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; Scott Smith, City Of Yuma

Scott Smith, City Of Yuma: The exemption in the existing statue is causing confusion with constituents and
telecommunication providers and needs to be removed to provide clarity for our rural border communities.;
Rodney Short, YUMA, CITY OF: This bill simply removes an exemption and places border communities on a level
field with the remainder of the state.

HB2400, technical correction; self-service storage; notice

Testiiied ii suppect

Ryan Taylor, representing self

Brett Mecum, Other

3, 1axes.

HB2522, bingo; license

Pesiited ti support:

Connie Rogers, representing self; Weldon McCarrell, representing self

Neutral:
Bill Ritz , AZ DEPT OF REVENUE

Oppose:
Michael Haener, Partner, SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY; Theresa Ulmer, COCOPAH INDIAN
TRIBE

All Carnments:

Michael Haener, SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY: SRPMIC is opposed to the underlying bill.
With the passage of the Chairman's strike everything anendment, we will be neutral.; Theresa Ulmer, COCOPAH
INDIAN TRIBE: Support Striker Language

Attachment 2

HB2076, iarm wirieries; production

Supper:

Rob Fullmer, ARIZONA CRAFT BREWERS GUILD; Camila Alarcon, ARIZONA CRAFT BREWERS GUILD; Alicia Klassen,
representing self; Robert Klassen, representing self; Rod Keeling, representing self; James Collins, representing self;
Joseph Junker, representing self; Elizabeth Salazar, representing self; Santa Cruz County Supervisor Bruce Bracker,
representing self; Pegey Klemp, representing self; pam fitzgeraid, representing self; Kelle Maslyn, representing self;

Philip Bashaw, AZ FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; Mila Besich, representing self; Ryan McLaughlin , representing self;
Tiffany Dahlin, representing self; Joseph Dahlin, representing self; Martha Liermann, representing self; Barbara
Pierce, representing self; Ken Wilson, representing self; Jesse Noble, representing self; Frank Bostock, representing
self; Dean Pefanis, representing self; Pavle Milic, representing self; Barbara Meaney, ARIZONA VIGNERONS
ALLIANCE; Yavapai County Supervisor Randy Garrison, representing self; Chelsea McGuire, AZ FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION; Alan Everett, AZ WINE GROWERS ASSN

Don Isaacson, AZ LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSN; Tom Farley, Wine Spirits Wholesalers Association Of Arizona; Kevin
O'Malley, representing self; Marie Isaacson, AZ LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSN; Trish Hart, AZ FOOD MARKETING
ALLIANCE; Jaime Molera, ARIZONA LODGING AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION; Courtney Coolidge, AZ CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE; Mike Reina, representing self; Susie Stevens, Breakthru Beverage; Steve Barclay, BEER & WINE
DISTRIBUTORS OF ARIZONA; Jessie Armendt, YOUNG'S MARKET CO SOUTHWEST LLC; Ryan O'Daniel, SOUTHERN
WINE & SPIRITS OF AMER INC DBA SO WINE & SPIRITS OF AZ

All Corrientes:

Rob Fullmer, ARIZONA CRAFT BREWERS GUILD: We support this bill so that it may pass and the negotiations can
continue.; Rod Keeling, Self: it’s about water as much as wine. Viticulture uses 1/5th the water and can have 25X
the economic impact for rural communities than commodity crops. We need to eliminate the limits on wineries to
attract the expansion of vineyards in AZ.; James Collins, Self: Wine makes Arizona special. Please support our
Arizona wineries.; Joseph Junker, Self: | support this bill and efforts to allow small farming operations the
opportunity to grow and compete with neighboring states; Santa Cruz County Supervisor Bruce Bracker, Self: It is
time to make Arizona Wine Growers competitive with the the rest of the country; Kelle Maslyn, Self: You should
vote yes on HB2876. | have enjoyed seeing the wine business in AZ grow into a popular industry that also brings
tourists to the state. It is a benefit to the state to continue to let it prosper and bring in more tax money for the
state.; Ryan McLaughlin , Self: STEM Wine Company - Arizona Wine Wholesaler; Dean Pefanis, Self: This bill will
help grow the Arizona wine industry as well as tourism and promote job growth in rural Arizona; Pavie Milic, Self:
Co-Owner - FnB Restaurant, Los Milics Winery; Chelsea McGuire, AZ FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: Farm wineries
are an important and growing part of Arizona's agriculture and tourism economies. They should not be stifled by
an arbitrary production limit or limitations on their retail businesses.; Kevin O'Malley, Self: Kevin O'Malley,
Gallagher & Kennedy, appearing and speaking on behalf of Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association of Arizona;
Ryan O'Daniel, SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF AMER INC DBA SO WINE & SPIRITS OF AZ: Opposed.

HB2823, ambulance service; interfacility transfers

Testified im suport:
Stuart Goodman, DIGNITY HEALTH; Diane King, representing self; Will Humble, AZ PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION;
Brandon Hestand, representing self; Anne Burns, representing self; Todd Nickoles, representing self; Shirley

Gunther, DIGNITY HEALTH

T@SHHed 85 ODpOSCE:

Don Isaacson, ABC AMBULANCE LLC; Michael Colletto, PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF AZ; Meghaen Dell‘Artino,
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE; Stan Barnes, Maricopa Ambulance; Mike Bielecki, AZ AMBULANCE ASSN; Glenn
Kasprzyk, representing self; Marie Isaacson, ABC AMBULANCE LLC; Brian Tobin, representing self

SuppORL:

Scot Mussi, Arizona Free Enterprise Club; Michelle Guadnola, representing self; Julie Graham, representing self;
Richard Sherry, representing self; Ryan Peters, CHANDLER, CITY OF; Annie Mooney, PHOENIX CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL; Jennifer Carusetta, HEALTH SYSTEM ALLIANCE OF ARIZONA; Jen Springman, GREATER PHOENIX
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; Nancy Gomez, representing self; Julia Blair, representing self; Kelly VanDahm,
representing self; Jennifer Baugham, representing self; Hank Roberson, representing self; Gabriel Gabriel,
representing self; Matthew Karger, representing self; Aaron Peace, representing self; Brandi Brashear,
representing self; Rachel Kurian, representing self; Anna McShane, representing self; Staci Ann King, representing
self; Karen Thorn, representing self

Neutral:
Greg Ensell, AZ HOSPITAL & HEALTHCARE ASSN; Rob Bohr, GILBERT, TOWN OF; Miranda DeWitt, MESA, CITY OF;
Ryan Lee, GLENDALE, CITY OF

Oppose:

Saundra Cole, representing self; Janna Day, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE; Chuck LeVinus, PROFESSIONAL FIRE
FIGHTERS OF AZ; Joseph Witt Jr., representing self; Brian Moore, representing self; Shelbe Hunsaker, AMERICAN
MEDICAL RESPONSE; Tom Dorn, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE; John Flynn, AZ FIRE DISTRICT ASSN; Briona May,
representing self

ALL GCaoniments:

Will Humble, AZ PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION: f believe this will improve overall urban ambulance system
performance in Arizona. | wouldn't support the bill if it included rural areas, but for Maricopa County | believe this
policy change will improve system efficiency and patient outcomes.; Michelle Guadnola, Self: { work in a busy
Phoenix ED/trauma center. Timely transport of critically ill or injured patients is essential for optimal patient
outcomes!!; Karen Thorn, Self: {t is critical we complete interfacility ambulance transports in a more timely manner.
Many times patients have had to wait too long to get the next level of specialized care that is needed for their
treatment and recovery.; Meghaen Dell’Artino, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE: .; Mike Bielecki, AZ AMBULANCE
ASSN: This bill will have damaging consequences to Arizona EMS providers and lead to additional costs for the
system.; Glenn Kasprzyk, Self: Representing AMR; Brian Tobin, Self: Representing the Daisy Mountain Fire District,
(Anthem, New River, Desert Hills, Black Canyon City); Brian Moore, Self: The Daisy Mountain Fire District tocated in
the North Valley had to go through a time consuming process to obtain an Interfacility CON. An out of state for
profit company should be granted special legistation to circumvent that process. Thank you.; John Flynn, AZ FIRE

DISTRICT ASSN: Oppose any carve out of the ground ambulance CON process for special interests; Briona May,
Self: 1 will speak on behalf of AFSCME Local 2960 and 2384. if time permits

HB2825, tobacco: voping: penalties; legal age

festitied in suonmort:
OF

Doug Cau, representing self

Brian Hummell, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

ee ene uae

eee er erates

Barry Aarons, ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS; Amanda Rusing, AZ ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE

Newulrar

Kevin DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; Joe DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER
SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; Mark Barnes, Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation; Don fsaacson, RAI
SERVICES COMPANY; Nicole Olmstead, American Heart Association; Elizabeth Goodman, American Heart
Association; Marie Isaacson, RAI SERVICES COMPANY

Oppose:

Pat VanMaanen, representing self

All Corjpients:

Pat VanMaanen, Self: Aligns use age with federal law, Does not establish a license and does not include
enforcement mechanism.; Kevin DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK: with
concerns; Joe DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK: Neutral with concerns. Looking
forward to ongoing dialogue; Nicole Olmstead, American Heart Association: We have concerns regarding the
implementation of this bill and would like to work with the sponsor to improve it.; Elizabeth Goodman, American
Heart Association: Will support if funding source is added and if vapor products are defined as tobacco.

ices; minors: enterprise penalties

HB28o5, furnishing fob
SUuphar:
Doug Lau, representing self; Amanda Rusing, AZ ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

Neutral:

Kevin DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; Joe DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER
SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; Mark Barnes, Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation; Elizabeth Goodman,
American Heart Association; Don tsaacson, RAI SERVICES COMPANY; Nicole Olmstead, American Heart Association;
Marie Isaacson, RAI SERVICES COMPANY
Pat VanMaanen, representing self

Pat VanMaanen, Self: As written, does not increase usage age to be consistent with federal law. --LD 15; Kevin
DeMenna, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK: with concerns; Joe DeMenna, AMERICAN
CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK: Neutral with concerns. Looking forward to ongoing dialogue; Nicole

Olmstead, American Heart Association: We have some concerns with how compliance will work with this bill. We
would like to work with the sponsor to improve.

s betting: historic racing; revenue

eed

Lloyd Yother, representing self

PeSUNed Sh abodes!
:

Jerome Kasey, representing self

Kevin DeMenna, RILLITO RACING, INC.; Fred Guzman, representing self; James Hamilton, J&J EQUINE ENTERPRISES;
Leroy Gessmann, representing self; Joe DeMenna, RILLITO RACING, INC.; Brian Murray, J&J EQUINE ENTERPRISES;
Kurt Davis, DELAWARE NORTH; Jaye Wells, representing self; Aaron Feinberg, representing self

Newiral:
Aiden Fleming , AZ DEPT OF GAMING

Michael Haener, Partner, SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY; Tom Farley, COLORADO RIVER
INDIAN TRIBES; Kristen Boilini, FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION; Meghaen Dell'Artino, GILA RIVER INDIAN
COMMUNITY; John MacDonald, HUALAPAI TRIBE; Delia Carlyle, representing self; Edith Lefevre, AZ INDIAN
GAMING ASSN; STEVE TITLA, representing self; Theresa Ulmer, COCOPAH INDIAN TRIBE

Kevin DeMenna, RILLITO RACING, INC.: .; Lloyd Yother, Self: Az Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Assoc; Leroy
Gessmann, Self: AZ Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Assoc; Jerome Kasey, Self: White Mountain Apache Tribe
and Arizona indian Gaming Association; Meghaen Dell’Artino, GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY: .; STEVE TITLA,

Seif: With San Carlos Apache Tribe

HB2445, simulcast dou racing; wagering; time

Fred Guzman, representing self

Kevin DeMenna, RILLITO RACING, INC.

LEG re:

James Hamilton, J&J EQUINE ENTERPRISES; Marcus Dell’Artino, DELAWARE NORTH; Leroy Gessmann, representing
self; Brian Murray, J&J- EQUINE ENTERPRISES; Kurt Davis, DELAWARE NORTH; Aaron Feinberg, representing self;
Lloyd Yother, representing self

Joe DeMenna, RILLITO RACING, INC.; Kelsey Lundy, TURF PARADISE

Jaye Wells, representing self

Fred Guzman, Self: Happy to provide comments; Leroy Gessmann, Self: AHBPA; Lloyd Yother, Self: Az Horsemen's
Benevolent & Protective Assoc; Kevin DeMenna, RILLITO RACING, INC.: with concerns; Joe DeMenna, RILLITO
RACING, INC.: with concerns; Kelsey Lundy, TURF PARADISE: Neutral with Weninger amendment and amendment
expected on the floor.

ig; Caregivers

wPEEDD ECE
Dana Paschke, AZ ASSN MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS; ellen katz, William E. Morris Institute For Justice; Zach
Tretton, AZ ASSN MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS

Susan Brenton, MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES OF AZ INC

Dana Paschke, AZ ASSN MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS: Support with the Committee amendment and floor
amendment to strike lines 8-10.; ellen katz, William E. Morris Institute For Justice: We support the bill with the
committee amendment and with the expectation that on the House floor there will be an amendment to remove
the requirement in the bill that the live-in aide meets the definition in the federal regulation.; Zach Tretton, AZ
ASSN MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS: Support with the Committee amendment and pending floor amendment
to strike lines 8-10.; Susan Brenton, MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES OF AZ INC: We are still working
with other groups on this bill

HBZ849, sinici ning; housing overlay

Spencer Kamps, HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL AZ

rs wks 2 ‘

Douglas Cole, PARADISE VALLEY, TOWN OF; Tom Savage, LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS

wer
Emily Ryan, Southern Arizona Home Builders Association; Steve Trussell, AZ ROCK PRODUCTS ASSN; Aimee Yentes,
AZ FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB

gots Debs lined ee
RP ER ES Sets

George Diaz, Principal, BUCKEYE, TOWN OF; Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter; Brad Lundahl,
SCOTTSDALE, CITY OF; Rivko Knox, representing self; Peter Bengtson, representing self; Pat VanMaanen,
representing self; Robert White, representing self; Amber Wakeman, City Of £1 Mirage; Judith Simons, representing
self; Thomas Krepitch, representing self; Lisa Doll, representing self; Harry Lumley, representing self; howard
johnson, representing self; Barbara Warren, representing self; Elna Otter, representing self; Rebecca Smith Gross,
representing self; Cary Meister, representing self; Peggie Jo Vincent, representing self; Rob Bohr, GILBERT, TOWN
OF; Beverly Janowitz-Price, representing self; Rosalind Switzer, representing self; Jessica Blazina, City Of Avondale;
Adrienne Udarbe, representing self; Kenneth Bierman, representing self; Mary Ann Graffagnino, representing self;
Alisa McMahon, representing self; Michael Fiflis, representing self; Thomas Adkins, PEORIA, CITY OF; Chery!
Lombard, VALLEY PARTNERSHIP; Dianne Post, representing self; elizabeth Michele Edson, representing self;
Miranda DeWitt, MESA, CITY OF; Karen Cusano, representing self; Tyler Goodman, PRESCOTT, CITY OF; Judy
Whitehouse, representing self; Meg Weesner, representing self; Bettina Bickel, representing self; Cole Libera, AZ
PLANNING ASSOCIATION; Dale Wiebusch, MARICOPA, CITY OF; Lourdes Pefia, SIERRA VISTA, CITY OF; Ronald Eich,
representing self; Cynthia Hans, representing self; Shirley Hervatin, representing self; Kathleen Sikes, representing
self; Rebecca Hinton, representing self; Daniel Romm, QUEEN CREEK, TOWN OF; Jackie Rich, representing self;
Sharon Lee, representing self; Geline Coulbourne, representing self; Lynn Ashby, representing self; Julie Davis,
representing self; Gail Bliss, representing self; Korey Hjelmeir, representing self; Linda Bentley, representing self;
Don Bentley, representing self; Patricia Mentz, representing self; Tristan Topps, representing self; Virginia Dotson,
representing self; Nancy Santori, representing self; jana Segal, representing self; Daniel Stormont, representing
self; Vivian Harte, representing self; Duane Ediger, representing self; Christina Bustos, representing self; Andrea
Will, representing self; Gloria Montano, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC; Yesenia Dhott, PHOENIX, CITY
OF; Rodney Short, YUMA, CITY OF; Alex Brough, representing self; Kenneth Muir, representing self; Alexis Apodaca,
CHANDLER, CITY OF; Shelly Gordon-Gray, representing self; Norma Bliven, representing self; Pat Jayson,
representing self

Steve Trussell, AZ ROCK PRODUCTS ASSN: The state faces a housing affordability issue. The Director of the Arizona
Department of Housing is expecting the "private sector to step up" to solve this matter. You can help by reforming
the zoning and land use rules. Regulations impact cost!; Douglas Cole, PARADISE VALLEY, TOWN OF: There was no
stakeholder process. PV is all one-acre or larger lots. Bill does not recognize the uniqueness of towns such as PV.;
Rivko Knox, Self: This bill purports to address affordable housing, but it doesn't. Instead it opens up more land for
development while taking away local control.; Peter Bengtson, Self: | urge you to reject this bill. Local control is
important in any land decisions.; Pat VanMaanen, Self: This would open up massive amounts of fand for
development and take away more local control while purporting to address affordable housing. It does not.; Judith
Simons, Self: tronic how some bemoan “federal overreach" but don't recognize "state overreach." The text of this
bill sounds like a topic for city/town councils. Please refrain from injecting yourselves into these matters better
decided at the local level.; Lisa Doll, Self: Let our communities be where ore children can have a place to play |;
Elna Otter, Self: t'm really tired of rampant, uncontrolled development. How about we just enjoy Arizona?;

Adrienne Udarbe, Self: Housing is one of the best known and documented determinants of health. The
affordability, location, and quality of housing have all been independently linked to health. Poor quality housing
and blighted neighborhoods diminish community wellbeing.; Mary Ann Graffagnino, Self: This would open up
massive amounts of land for development and take away more local contro! while purporting to address

affordable housing, WHICH IT DOES NOTI; Alisa McMahon, Self: This is not about affordable housing.; Michael Fiflis,
Self: Local zoning control works best.; Cheryl Lombard, VALLEY PARTNERSHIP: We are happy to work with the bill
sponsor on addressing our concerns.; Lourdes Pefia, SIERRA VISTA, CITY OF: .; Cynthia Hans, Self: Let municipalities

nernmnnnnnnnen GOGIE-their-zoning--they-have-their-own elected officials: One-size-does-not-fit-all; relish-the joy of-diversity-in
neighborhoods.; Rebecca Hinton, Self: against; Jackie Rich, Self: Takes away local control.; Lynn Ashby, Self:
Another attempt to overrule local gov't authority in favor of absolute control by a GOP legislature.; Gail Bliss, Self:
This bill would take away local control of development and does not really address affordable housing.; Virginia
Dotson, Self: We need to maintain jocal control over potentially large -scale housing developments.; Jana Segal,
Self: This will take power away frorn communities to have a say in development. We don't have the resources for
perpetual development.; Daniel Stormont, Self: This appears to be little more than a giveaway of lands to
developers. It is bad land policy and bad water policy masquerading as a way to address the affordable housing
crisis.; Gloria Montano, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC: The State should support local governments and
not take on pre-emption.; Alex Brough, Self: Stop giving our public spaces away to corporate interests. This bill is
not about affordable housing. Quality of life is important to health and having open spaces is a huge factor in that
quality.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SJ Please PRINT Clearly |
Committee. Lo Wm: eFC-€ sin nomber (48 2 3 [|
Date 2. / / & / 20 20 (4 Support (4 Oppose (Neutral

_ Name Pay! E Bri en| = Z Need to Speak? Wes ONo
Representing Com A Co, tor 0 ‘. Bg, 7a bh «op Are you a registered lobbyist? N 0
culty

[Seen 50 Ae -
Complete Address Fv, [helen 15 te oH, Yuma, AE E53¥5

E-mail Address 16 erloy, @ eonar 6.01 Bona. ¥rone Number 12 $920 ~ 49 83
Comments: Bee ban Sf ts Crvkegh fe Ay Tee£ Peeptaun “ Ne yok Pua

# FT VE-MINUTE SPEAKING LIMIT**#

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Please PRINT Clearly
Committeeon —_§ Mp ee Bill Number 47 ZS¢/
Date fed LE FoI? (1) Support Jf Oppose 2 Neutral
Name iaek. Le seit; Need to Speak? Kes [I No
Representing } rf Are you a registered lobbyist? Je
Complete Address
E-mail Address _ Phone Number
Comments:

*8FTVE-MINUTE SPEAKING LIMIT#**

3
, #

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE RECORD

GOMMITTEE-ON COMMERCE
CHAIRMAN: Jeff Weninger VICE-CHAIRMAN: _ Travis W. Grantham
DATE 02/11/20 a/is /20 20 /20 120
CONVENED Apr} B+ yg Pm m m m
- RECESSED |
RECONVENED
ADJOURNED Siodgn 715 9M
MEMBERS
Biasiucci WA vi
Butler VA J
Chavez vA WA
Epstein J | vi
Kern vA Vv
Meza J Vv
~ Roberts f ¥
Grantham, Vice-Chairman J 4
Weninger, Chairman VA v

v Present --- Absent exc Excused

Attachment 3

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2311: wireless providers; authority; applicability
Sponsor: Representative Dunn, LD 13
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Applies laws governing the use of public right-of-way by wireless providers to an Authority located
along the Mexico border.

History
Laws 2017, Chapter 124 established regulations for wireless providers for the use of a right-of-

way to construct, install, maintain or replace utility poles or monopoles or the collocation of a small
wireless facility. The law prohibits an Authority from entering into an exclusive arrangement with
a wireless provider for the construction, installation, maintenance or replacement of a utility poles
or monopoles or their collocation. Any Authority located within 10 miles of the border of Mexico
that has a contract which assists and supports national security objectives along the border is
exempt from laws governing wireless providers use of a right-of-way (A.R.S. § 9-591 et al.).

An Authority includes any city, town, special district or political subdivision of this state (A.R.S. §
9-591).

Provisions
1. Removes the exemption of laws governing wireless providers use of right-of-way granted to
Authorities located along the Mexico border. (Sec. 1)

Attachment 1

LD Prop 105 (45 votes) [4] Prop 108 (40 votes) ©) Emergency (40 votes) EJ Fiscal Note

HB 2311
Initials PRB Page 1 Commerce
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE
COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. HB 2344
DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: _.!
PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci V
Butler /
Chavez S
Epstein /
Kern Yo
Meza J
Roberts WA
Grantham, Vice-Chairman J y
Weninger, Chairman J

$ 0 O l

bie Yue DV ahor_

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

YMG,

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT. 5
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB-2400: technical-correction; self-service storage; notice

S/E: blockchain and cryptocurrency study committee
Sponsor: Representative Weninger, LD 17
Committee on Commerce

Summary of the Strike-Everything Amendment to HB 2400

Overview
Establishes the Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Study Committee (Committee).

History
Blockchain is a cryptographically-secured distributed ledger that records transactions

chronologically, permanently and unalterably.

Laws 2019, Chapter 263 appropriated $1,250,000 in FY 2020 to the Arizona Commerce Authority
to distribute to applied research centers and institutes located in this state that specialize in
blockchain technology.

Provisions
1. Establishes the 11-member Committee and outlines the Committee membership. (Sec. 1)

2. Directs the Committee to:

a) Meet as often as the chairperson deems necessary;

b) Review data on the scope of blockchain and cryptocurrency through the country;

c) Compile an overview of potential legislation;

d} Solicit ideas and opinions of industry experts on additional legislation in Arizona; and

e) Submit a report regarding the Committee's findings and recommendations of legislative
priorities that will foster a positive blockchain and cryptocurrency economic environment
in this state to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2020. (Sec.
1)

3. Terminates the Committee September 31, 2021. (Sec. 1)

Attachment b

L} Prop 105 (45 votes) [1 Prop 108 (40 votes) © Emergency (40 votes) UO Fiscal Note

HB 2400
Initials PRB Page 1 Commerce

Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regular Session H.B. 2400

PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2400

mo Oo ~~ DD OO FP WY YP &

yy mM HY DY KH HP FF FP BP EP BP Be Ee eS Ee
FF WO DY FF OY DN DA BP WMH FF OO

(Reference to printed bil7)

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:

"Section 1. Biockchain and cryptocurrency study committee:

members: duties: report: dela epeal

A. The blockchain and cryptocurrency study committee is established
consisting of the following members:

1, Three members of the house of representatives who are appointed
by the speaker of the house of representatives, not more than two of whom
are members of the same political party. The speaker of the house of
representatives shall designate one of these members to serve as
chairperson of the committee.

2. One member who is the president or chief executive officer of an
Arizona-based cryptocurrency company that is within the top twenty-five in
the world by trade volume. The speaker of the house of representatives
shal] appoint this member. |

3. One member who represents a cryptocurrency exchange. The speaker
of the house of representatives shall appoint this member,

4. One member who represents a company with a business model that
uses blockchain for non-cryptocurrency transaction purposes. The speaker
of the house of representatives shall appoint this member.

5. The director of the department of revenue or the director's
designee.

6. A university professor who specializes in blockchain and who is
from a university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of
regents. The speaker of the house of representatives shall appoint this
member, pe

adopted oe # of Verbal
Failed ss“ Withdrawn__

: Not Offered. Analvsts Initi als

Attachment T

po Oo nt OO TO Se WD TY te

| NO on oe oo
KF Oo OO NN DD OT S&F WO DY KF O&O

House Amendments to H.B. 2400

7. One member who represents a blockchain payments solution company.
The speaker of the house of representatives shall appoint this member.

8. One member who represents a blockchain or cryptocurrency
association, The speaker -of--the--house--of representatives shall appoint
this member.

9, One public member who is appointed by the speaker of the house of
representatives.

B. The committee shall:

1. Meet as often as the chairperson deems necessary.

2. Review data on the scope of blockchain and cryptocurrency
throughout the country.

3. Compile an overview of potential legislation.

4. Solicit ideas and opinions of industry experts on additional
legislation in Arizona.

5. On or before December 31, 2020, submit a report regarding the
committee's findings and recommendations of legislative priorities that
will foster a positive blockchain and cryptocurrency economic environment
in this state to the speaker of the house of representatives and provide a
copy of this report to the secretary of state,

C. This section is repealed from and after September 30, 2021."

Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER

Z400WENINGER
02/14/2020
12:13 PM

C: ns

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE
COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. HB 2400
DATE February 18, 2020 motion: pA (AE
PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci WA

Butier WA

Chavez Va
Epstein J

Kern J

Meza J

Roberts J

Grantham, Vice-Chairman VA .

Weninger, Chairman J

4 | o | o

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT §

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2522: bingo; licenses; taxes.
Sponsor: Representative Lieberman, LD 28
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Removes references to a class A license with regards to games of bingo and repeals stature
relating to license classifications.

History

Current statute outlines the three different classifications of licenses and their requirements as: A
class A license which may be issued to a person to manage bingo games as long as the gross
receipts do not exceed $15,600 per year. A class B license may be issued to a qualified
organization to manage a bingo games in which the gross receipts do not exceed $300,000 per
year. Aclass C license may be issued to a qualified organization to manage bingo games in which
the gross receipts do exceed $300,000.00 per year.

Bingo means a game of chance in which a prize is awarded to a player who obtains a designated
pattern or sequence of numbers or symbols on a card that are the same as the pattern or
sequence of numbers or symbols selected at random. When placed in quotation marks, “bingo”
means the designated pattern or sequence of numbers or symbols needed to win a bingo game.
(A.A.C. R15-7-201)

Qualified organization is defined as a homeowners association or any bona fide charitable,
fraternal, religious, social, veterans‘ organization or volunteer firefighters organization, or nonprofit
ambulance service as defined in section 41-1831 or any chartered branch or lodge or chapter of
such national or state organization which operates without profit to its members and which has
been in existence continuously for a period of two years in Arizona immediately before applying
for a license under this article, and may include not more than one identified auxiliary of any such
organization.

Manager is defined as a person who has overall responsibility for conducting bingo games by a
licensee and is designated as a manager in the application for a license.

Lawful purposes are defined as the expenditure of net proceeds of a game of bingo exclusively
by a licensee for the purposes of carrying out its mission and its aims or for the purpose of charity.
(A.R.S. § 5-401)

Provisions
4. Eliminates laws outlining the requirement for multiple classifications of licenses to manage a

bingo game. (Sec. 5)
2. Creates singular classification for bingo operation license. (Sec. 6)

3. Outlines what is a qualified organization in order to be licensed bingo game operator as:
a, The manager and supervisor must be member of licensee;

Initials MCL Commerce

Attachment y,

b. The proceeds coordinator mush be an officer or director and a member of the licensee
and is responsible for completion of the required financial report; and
c. An assistant must be a member or new member of the licensee. (Sec. 6)

4. Makes a substantive change by eliminating different license classes body, fees and taxes,
and creating one body, fee and tax structure for bingo gaming. (Sec. 7)

5. Eliminates laws outlining reporting instructions for different classifications of bingo licenses.
(Sec. 8)

6. Increases the number of days that a licensee may operate a bingo game in a week from five
to seven days. (Sec. 3)

7. Makes technical changes. (Sec. 1, 2, 3, and 4)

LJ Prop 105 (45 votes) C] Prop 108 (40 votes) Emergency (40 votes) 1 Fiscal Note

Initials MCL Commerce

NM MR PR MR FRR eR sp sp a
OW ry FY DBD wo DON HR OM F&F WY WY BR CO

oO ON DW OM F&F |W PD BH

Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regular Session H.B. 2522

PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2522
_ (Reference to printed bill)

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:

"Section 1. Section 5-406, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to

read:

5-406. Persons permitted to conduct games: premises:

equipment: expenses: compensation

A. A person shall not hold, operate or conduct any game of bingo
under any license issued pursuant to this article unless the person has
submitted affidavits as required in section 5-404 and has received prior
written approval from the licensing authority. Persons seeking to replace
a manager, proceeds coordinator, supervisor or assistant or to serve as an
additional manager, supervisor or assistant shall submit the appropriate
affidavit to the licensing authority as required in section 5-404,

B. Except as provided in section 5-413, only contractors, members
and new members of a licensee or an applicant may participate or apply to
participate in conducting any bingo game held by the licensee.

C. Except for a class A licensee, a person shall not hold, operate,
conduct or assist in conducting any game or games of bingo under any
license if the person or the person's spouse has a proprietary, equitable
or credit interest, or is an officer, director, agent or employee of an
individual or company that has a proprietary, equitable or credit interest,
in the licensee,

D. Bookkeepers or accountants need not be members of the

organization.

‘Attachment_[0 _

Adopted Vv. # of Verbals.
Withdrawn_

Failed 2

Not Offered Analysts Initials
CO Dm NN DW OT &S CW PP bt

wo Ww MO Mm TS MW MF MR MRF RO MR DN Fe ew rR rr ER RE RE RH
pe OF Oo DO HN DD OT Se W MH FH DTD HO CO NN ODO TH SP WY MH KF OS

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

E. An item-of expense shall not be incurred or paid in connection
with holding, operating or conducting any game of bingo held, operated or
conducted pursuant to any license issued under this article, except bona
fide expenses ina reasonable amount for purposes described in section
5-407, subsection G. A game of bingo shal? not be conducted with any
equipment except equipment owned solely by the licensee, or jointly by not
more than six licensees. No portion of the ownership of such equipment may
be held by any person or organization not licensed pursuant to this
chapter. A game of bingo shall not be conducted with rented equipment.

This subsection does not apply to technological aids for bingo games that

function only as electronic substitutes for bingo cards or a contractor's

personnel who are needed to operate technological aids prescribed in
subsection Y of this section.

F. An applicant or a licensee shall not enter into any purchase
agreement other than a bona fide purchase agreement. The seller may

repurchase equipment only on default of the buyer and then only at a price

equal to or greater than ninety percent of any money paid for equipment

from buyer to seller. The seller may repurchase a building only on default
of the buyer at a fair market value per licensee.

G. A licensee shal] not conduct or operate more than five occasions
of bingo during any calendar week. Not more than twelve hours of bingo
shall be conducted in any building or on any premises during any calendar
day. .

H. The entire net proceeds of any. game shall be devoted to a lawful
use or uses. In addition to other unlawful uses, the following are not
considered lawful uses under this subsection:

1. Compensation and expenses of directors, officers and management
personnel. . ;

2. Fees or commissions of consultants.

3. Compensation paid for legal services incurred by a licensee

unsuccessfully defending against charges of violations of this article.
po oN Dm TO Re WD MH F&

a an oe ee
re OW MH He ©

£6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
21

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

4, Donations to other than national, state or local nonprofit parent
organizations in excess of five percent of the net proceeds except with the
permission of the licensing authority. -

5. Donations or any payment from the lessor to the lessee.

I. The premises where any game of bingo is being held, operated or
conducted, where it is intended that any game of bingo shall be held,
operated or conducted or where it is intended that any equipment shall be
used shall at all times be open to inspection by the licensing authority,
its agents and employees and peace officers of any political subdivision of
the state.

J. When any merchandise prize is awarded in a game of bingo, its
value shall be its current retail price. A merchandise prize shall not be
redeemable or convertible into cash directly or indirectly.

K, Equipment, prizes and supplies for games of bingo shall not be
purchased or sold at prices in excess of one hundred fifteen percent of the
average price paid by other licensees as reported in the reports submitted
to the licensing authority during the prior six-month period by licensees
having the same class of license. A licensee shall not enter into any
contract or purchase agreement whereby it agrees to limit its source of
supplies.

Le An alcoholic beverage shall not be offered or given as a prize in
any such game. .

M. The net profits derived from the holding of games of bingo must
be devoted within one year after the date such profits were earned to the
lawful purposes of the organization permitted to conduct such games. Any
organization desiring to hold the net profits of games of bingo for a
period longer than one year after the date such profits were earned must
apply to the licensing authority for special permission and on good cause
shown the authority may grant the request.

N. Any licensee that does not report during any one-year period the

amount of its net profits, if any, shall be required to show cause before

to ON OD OH mB WD MR HE

W & Ww MR Mm MR MR PM MH MR PRY MR MR Bre rR RR RS RO
wo FF DO Oo OH DH oO & WH HY KF TO HO OB NH DH OT FP CO HS KF &

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

the licensing authority why its license to conduct games of ‘bingo should
not be revoked. , |

0. The licensing authority shall require a licensee that does not
conduct bingo games during any one-year period to show cause why its
license to conduct games of bingo should not be cancelled.

P. Except as otherwise provided by this section, a prize greater in
amount or value than one thousand dollars shall not be offered or given in
any single game of bingo conducted under any such license, and total prizes
shall not exceed an amount or value greater than three thousand dollars for
any occasion. Door prizes, discounts or other inducements with a value
exceeding two hundred fifty dollars per occasion shal} not be offered or
given away. | ,

Q. Except for a class A licensee, on application to the licensing
authority by the licensee the licensing authority may authorize one special
bonus game to be played at weekly consecutive occasions with a quarterly
prize limit of twelve thousand dolars. A weekly consecutive occasion is
an occasion played on the same day of each week during the quarter. The —
special bonus game may be played at each weekly consecutive occasion
subject to the rules adopted by the licensing authority. The special bonus
game is not subject to the prize limits prescribed by subsection P of this
section. . ;

R. The equipment used in playing bingo and the method of play shall
be such that each card Shall have an equal opportunity to be a winner. The
objects or balis to be drawn shall be essentially the same as to size,
shape, weight, balance and all other characteristics that may influence
their selection. All objects or balls shall be present in the receptacle
before each game is begun. All numbers announced shall be plainly and
clearly audible or visible to ail the players present. Where more than one
room is used for any one game, the receptacle, the person calling the
numbers as they are drawn and the person removing the objects or balls from
the receptacle must be present in the room where the greatest number of

players is present and al] numbers announced shall be plainly audible or

-4-
oOo Oo ND Oo BP WO NM &K

a on
> we wm KF @

£6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

27 .

28
23
30
"1

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

visible to the players in that room and also audible or visible to the
players in the other room or rooms. The cards or sheets of the players
shall be part of a deck, group or series of cards, no two of which shall be
alike, and which deck, group or series shall not be so prepared or arranged
as to prefer any card. A licensee may provide braille cards for legally
blind persons or allow legatly blind persons to supply their own braille
cards. A legally blind person supplying the person's own cards shall pay a
fee to the licensee equal to that which would be charged if the legally
blind person obtained the cards from the licensee. The bingo game activity
shall be conducted and recorded in a manner as prescribed by the licensing
authority to verify the gross receipts from each occasion.

S. The receptacle, the person calling the numbers as they are drawn
and the person removing the objects or balls from the receptacle must be
visible to all the players at all times except. where more than one room is
used for any one game and subsection R of this section applies.

T. The particular arrangement of numbers required to be covered in
order to win the game and the amount of the prize shall be clearly and
audibly or visibly described and announced to the players. immediately
before each game is begun.

U. Any players shal] be entitled to call for a verification of all
numbers drawn at the time a winner is determined, and for a verification of
the objects or balls remaining in the receptacle and not yet drawn. The
verification shall be made in the immediate presence of the supervisor and
in full view of any player requesting the verification. |

V. A person who is not physically present on.the premises where the
game is actually conducted shal] not be allowed to participate as a player
in the game.

W. A person who holds, operates or conducts, or assists in holding,
operating or conducting, a game of bingo shall not play at any occasion at
which such person works unless the game of bingo is conducted pursuant to a

class A license.
Oo FN OD HT BR WR EE

Oo WO WCW PM MRM PR PR PO PR PO MM RR BR rR rR OR te
mo F&F OD Oo Oo YN OD DT & WD MMH FF DS HY SCn FO OO F&F WO NY FY DS

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

RY 4 4 4%. 4. ma 5. 4 aha oh Luft * :
A.A person starr Mor CoMmauce a FUttery” Ur” Tatrie within a

a hut n x raw x. 3 54 4 ‘ 4 pg yt —' Lt
SUDSECETUN UVES TOL GTretr any reyartry CUMUULTTU  aALLivity reidteu by tS

¥> X. The operator of a bingo game shal? offer assistance to players

with disabilities, subject to the following:

1. The operator of a bingo game may offer players technological aids
for bingo games that function only as electronic substitutes for bingo
cards and shall reserve at least two of these technological aids for use by
players with disabilities. If no requests are made for the use of these
technological aids within fifteen minutes after the scheduled start of a
game of bingo, these reserved technological aids may be made available to
any other player.

2. If the operator of a bingo game, or any other person that is
involved in the conduct of a bingo game, charges players a fee for the use
of technological aids for bingo games that function only as electronic
substitutes for bingo cards or requires players to comply with a minimum
purchase requirement for the use of these technological aids, players with
disabilities may not be required to pay that fee or to comply with that
minimum purchase requirement. This paragraph does not prohibit the
operator of a bingo game or any other person that is involved in the
conduct of a bingo game from requiring-a player with a disability to comply
with a minimum purchase requirement that is imposed on all players.

3. The operator of a bingo game that offers technological aids for
bingo games that function only as electronic substitutes for bingo cards
shall allow players with disabilities to claim prizes by presenting a
printout or other evidence of a winning card.

4, The operator of a bingo game shal! allow players to use a form of

visual or audio signal to notify the operator of a winning pattern or

_ bingo, which, may include a flag, paddle, light, horn, bell or whistle or

any other mechanical or electronic means.

-6§-
eo OS NN OF Oo ek WwW DH HK

a a ey
Pe WM FP &

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23°

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
cs
32

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

5. If a player's disability restricts the player's ability to mark
cards, use technological aids for bingo games. that function only as
electronic substitutes for bingo cards or announce bingo, the operator of a
bingo game shall aliow another person to assist the player with a
disability in the bingo game.

6. A person with a disability who is employed by a bingo operator
may use technological aids for bingo games that function only as electronic
substitutes for bingo cards to properly carry out the person's job
functions as those functions apply to the conduct of bingo games.

Sec, 2, Section 5-413, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

5-413. License classification: requirements

A. A class A license may be issued to a person for the conduct of
bingo games for which the gross receipts do not exceed fifteen -tivcusamt six
honrdred otters $75,000 per year. A class A license shall not be issued to
a person who holds a license issued pursuant to title 4 except a club
license issued pursuant to section 4-205. For a class A license:

1. Any person may apply as prescribed in this article.

2. The manager, proceeds coordinator, supervisor and assistant are
not required to be members or new members.

3. The reporting period is one year coinciding with the term of the
license.

B. A class B license may be issued to a qualified organization for
the conduct of bingo games for which the gross receipts do not exceed three
tromdred-thousamd-dottars $500,000 per year. For a class B license:

1. Only a qualified organization may apply.

2. The manager and supervisor shall be members of the licensee.

3. The proceeds coordinator shall be an officer or director and a
member of the licensee and is responsible for completion of the required
financial repért.

4, An assistant shall be a member or new member of the licensee.

5. There are four reporting periods coinciding with the quarters of

the term of the license.

mo OB SNS TD OT He WD MN Fe

Be RP YP
Ne fF ©

House Amendments to H.B. 2522

C. A class C license may be issued to a qualified organization for
the conduct of bingo games for which the gross receipts exceed three
tondred—thousend-dotters $500,000 per year. For a class C license:

1. Only a qualified organization may apply.

2, The manager and supervisor shall be members of the licensee.

3. The proceeds coordinator shall be an officer or director and a
member of the licensee and is responsible for completion of the required
financial report.

4, An assistant shall be a member or new member of the licensee.

5. There are twelve reporting periods coinciding with each month of
the term of the license."

Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER

POPCBTANK docx
0274472626
63rtt- Pt

és tet

2522WENINGER2. docx
02/14/2020

03:05 PM

H: PRB/1s

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session .

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. — HB 2522

DATE February 18, 2020 motion. DPA BE
PASS AYE NAY | PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci J

Butler /

Chavez A

Epstein S/S

Kern S

Meza J

Roberts J

Grantham, Vice-Chairman VY

Weninger, Chairman S

q , 0 y,

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

! A

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT //
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2876: farm wineries; production
Sponsor: Representative Weninger, LD 17
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Removes certain production limitations for a farm winery license.

History

A person that produces between 200 and 40,000 gallons of wine may be licensed as a farm
winery. Statute outlines permissible actions and restrictions regarding the sale and delivery of
wine (A.R.S. § 4-205.04)

Provisions
1. Removes the production cap for a farm winery licensee that ships wine directly to purchasers
in this state. Current cap is 20,000 gallons per year. (Sec. 1)

2. Removes the requirement for a farm winery licensee to obtain a producer license if the
licensee exceeds the production cap permitted by the license. (Sec. 2)

3. Removes the production cap for a farm winery license. Current cap is 40,000 gallons per year.
(Sec. 2)

4. Removes the production cap for a farm winery licensee that makes sales and deliveries of
wine to on-sale and off-sale retailers and to consumers who order by telephone, mail, fax or
internet. Current cap is 20,000 gallons per year. (Sec. 2)

5. Extends statutory restrictions for a licensed farm winery to a remote tasting room, (Sec. 2)

6. Makes a conforming change. (Sec. 3)

L] Prop 105 (45 votes) 0 Prop 108 (40 votes) (Emergency (40 votes) 0 Fiscal Note

HB 2876
Initials Page 1 Coammerra

Attachment wea

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO, HB 2876
DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: D er
PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT
Biasiucci WA
Butler V
Chavez J ;
Epstein J F;
Kern J
Meza J
Roberts J ,
Grantham, Vice-Chairman VA
Weninger, Chairman /
4 0 0 ty
LMtewy Me Snraker/
APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY
AWW

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT. / 2
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2823: ambulance service; interfacility transfers
Sponsor: Representative Weninger, LD 17
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Creates a certificate of operation for non-emergency interfacility transfers.

History
The Director (Director) of the Department of Health Service (Department) must adopt rules to

regulate the operation of ambulances and ambulance services which include, to regulate
operating and response times of ambulances to meet the needs of the public and to ensure
adequate service (A.R.S. § 36-2232).

In order to operate an ambulance service a person must apply for a certificate of necessity issued
by the Department. A person must meet all of the following requirements for issuance:
a) The ambulance service has a certificate of registration issued by the Department for at
least one ambulance;
b) The Director finds that public necessity requires the service, or any part of the service
proposed by the applicant;
c) The Director finds that the applicant is fit and proper to provide the service;
d) The applicant has paid the appropriate fees; and
e) The applicant has filed the necessary surety bond (A.R.S. § 36-2233).

Current statute defines ambulance as any publicly or privately owned surface, water or air vehicle,
including a helicopter, that contains a stretcher and necessary medical equipment and supplies
and that is especially designed and constructed or modified and equipped to be used, maintained
or operated primarily for the transportation of individuals who are sick, injured or wounded or who
require medical monitoring or aid (A.R.S. § 36-2201).

Provisions
1. Clarifies the rules adopted to regulate operating and response times of ambulance must meet
or exceed the needs of the public or the sponsoring hospital system.
a) Adds the rules adopted for certificated ambulance service operating under a certificate of
operation must include uniform standards for its service area and medical considerations.
(Sec. 2)

2. Extends certain rules and requirements for ambulance services operating under a certificate
of necessity to ambulance services operating under a certificate of operation. (Sec. 2)

3. Allows the Director to inquire into the compliance of certification by the commission on
accreditation of ambulance services. (Sec. 2)

4. Instructs the Department to grant requests from an ambulance service to be part of the
Phoenix Uniform Rate Group. (Sec. 2)

5. Excludes a person wishing to operate interfacility transfers under a certificate of operation
from the requirements for issuing a certificate of necessity. (Sec 3)

HB 2823
Initials PRB Page 1 Commerce

Attachment_/ ff

14.

12.

13,

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Requires a person to obtain a certificate of operation to operate an ambulance service to
provide interfacility transfers.
a) Outlines the requirements for issuance. (Sec. 4)

Requires a person that has obtained a certificate of operation to apply for a certificate of
registration. (Sec. 4)

Specifies the requirements for a certificate of operation does not apply to a person who holds
a valid certificate of necessity that authorizes interfacility transport. (Sec. 4)

Defines sponsorship. (Sec. 4)

. Exempts certificates of operation from public hearings and judicial review relating to rates,

fares or charges, operating or response times. (Sec. 5)

Allows the Director to determine the effects of rate changes on the general public in the area
of service designated in a certificate of operation. (Sec. 5)

Allows the Director to immediately suspend a certificate of registration, necessity or operation
or any combination of the three without notice if the Director determines a potential threat to
public health and safety. (Sec. 5)

Specifies an initial certificate of operation be issued for three years.

a) Allows the Director to evaluate the performance of the certificate holder after the first year.

b) Stipulates the certificate holder must implement an improvement plan if determined that
the performance is substandard. (Sec. 6)

Mandates the certificate holder to demonstrate accreditation by the Commission on
Accreditation of Ambulance Services prior to the expiration of the certificate of operation. (Sec.
6)

Requires the Director to renew the certificate of operation for three years if certain criteria are
met. (Sec, 6)

Stipulates a certificate of operation will be renewed for a period of at least one year if the

Director fails to act within 90 days after the expiration date.

a) Extends the term to three years if it is determined that there is no cause for denying or
renewing for a shorter term. (Sec. 6)

Voids a certificate of operation if the hospital system sponsorship is terminated. (Sec. 6)

Specifies a certificate of operation is not a franchise, may be revoked and does not confer a
property right to its holder. (Sec. 7)

Extends certain issuance requirements for a certificate of necessity to a certificate of
operation. (Sec. 8)

Establishes the following fees for a certificate of operation:
a) Application, $100;

b) Amend, transfer or renew, $50; and

c) Issuance of an initial certification, $200.

Clarifies written and signed statements of dissatisfaction pertaining to patient care, wait time
for interfacility transfers, the customer, patient, hospital system or health care provider are
deemed to have filed an inform complaint against the ambulance service. (Sec. 10)

Extends certain civil penalties, suspensions, reinstatement, and legal name change
requirements for a certificate of necessity to a certificate of operation. (Sec. 10, 11)

HB 2823

Initials PRB Page 2 Commerce
23. Defines certificate of operation, hospital system, interfacility transfer and sponsoring hospital
system. (Sec. 1)

24. Makes technical changes. (Sec. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11)

L] Prop 105 (45 votes) 1 Prop 108 (40 votes) FE] Emergency (40 votes) 1 Fiscal Note

HB 2823
Initials PRB Page 3 Commerce
Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regular Session H.B. 2823

PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B, 2823
(Reference to printed bill)

1 Page 2, strike liries 40 through 45
2 Page 3, strike lines 1 through 4

3 Renumber to conform
4 Page 4, line 4, strike "AND THAT" insert a period

Strike line 5
Line 26, strike "OPERATING PURSUANT TO A CERTIFICATE" insert a period
Strike line 27

Page 5, strike lines 14 through 45
Strike pages 6 and 7
Page 8, strike lines i through 33

Renumber to conform

Line 36, strike "Certificate of operation to provide"
Strike line 37, insert "ambulance service demonstration project; permits:
third- t endor: definition

Line 38, after "A." insert "THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH AN INTERFACILITY

AMBULANCE SERVICE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT."; strike "IN THIS STATE" insert
"UNDER THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO RECEIVE A DEMONSTRATION PERMIT"

Line 40, strike "FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION”

Line 41, strike "B."; strike “A CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION" insert “AN
INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT DEMONSTRATION PERMIT"

Reletter to conform
Page 9, Tine 2, strike "FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE IN ANOTHER STATE”

Line 4, after "REPORT" insert "RESPONSE TIMES"

Line 5, after "department" strike remainder of line insert a period Attachment 1/5

Adopted vo

= Failed

Not Offered.

House Amendments to H.B. 2823

Page 9, strike line 6
Line 9, strike "CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION" insert "DEMONSTRATION PERMIT"

Strike lines 12 through 14, insert:
"C. A PERSON WHO HOLDS A CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY PURSUANT TO

1

2

3

4

5 SECTION 36-2233 DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE INTERFACILITY AMBULANCE SERVICE
6

7

8

9

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
D. THE SERVICE AREA IN WHICH AN  INTERFACILITY . TRANSPORT

DEMONSTRATION PERMIT HOLDER MAY OPERATE IS LIMITED TO A COUNTY WITH A
POPULATION OF MORE THAN TIIREE MILLION PERSONS.

10 E. THE TERM OF AN INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT DEMONSTRATION PERMIT
11 ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS FIVE YEARS.

l2 em, THE DIRECTOR SHALI. ESTABLISH. RESPQNSE. TIMES FOR AN INTERFACILITY
13 TRANSPORT DEMONSTRATION PERMIT HOLDER THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH CERTIFICATE
14 OF NECESSITY HOLDERS THAT PERFORM INTERFACILITY TRANSPORTS IN THE SAME
15 SERVICE AREA. THE DATA SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR AND
16 USED TO VALIDATE RESPONSE: TIMES OF © THE INTERFACXLITY TRANSPORT
17 DEMONSTRATION PERMIT HOLDER... .

18 G. AT ANY TIME, THE DIRECTOR MAY EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
19 PERMIT HOLDER. JF THE PERFORMANCE IS DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANDARD, THE
20 PERMIT HOLDER SHALL IMPLEMENT. AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN THAT COMPLIES WITH THE
2) REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR.

22 H. IF AN INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT. DEMONSTRATION PERMIT HOLDER
23 ACHIEVES BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING AT THE END OF THE FIVE-YEAR DEMONSTRATION
24 PROJECT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE THE PERMIT
25 HOLDER A CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY:

26 1. RESPONSE TIMES HAVE BEEN MET AT LEAST NINETY-TWO PERCENT OF THE
27 TIME AS DETERMINED BY THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR.

28 2. THE PERMIT HOLDER HAS ACHIEVED OR IS SEEKING ACCREDITATION BY THE
29 . COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF AMBULANCE SERVICES." .

30 Reletter to conform
po oN DBD FO SF WO HD FR

a ey
No Fe &D

House Amendments to H.B. 2823

Page 9, strike lines 18 through 45
Strike pages 10 through 13
Page 14, strike lines 1 through 36, insert:

"Sec. 3. Repeal
Section 36-2233.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by this act,

is repealed from and after June 30, 2027."
Renumber to conform
Page 16, lines 4 and 5, strike "OR CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION"
Lines 10 and 11, strike "OR CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION"
Line 14, strike "OR CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION"
Strike lines 26 through 36

Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER

2823WENINGER
02/17/2020
11:20 AM

C: MH
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. HB 2823

DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: D da

PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci

Butler

Chavez

Epstein

Kern

Meza
Roberts

Grantham, Vice-Chairman

Weninger, Chairman

0 0 D

tS | NANI SINS

hres Tove Diphoord

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT. / G
Tammy L. Eigenheer

Tammy L. Eigenheer, Assistant Presiding Administrative Law Judge at the Arizona Office of
Administrative Hearings, has been with OAH since 2012. At OAH, Judge Eigenheer presides
over a wide variety of cases including HOA matters, disputes between homeowners and
licensed contractors, and disciplinary actions against professional licenses.

Before joining OAH, Judge Eigenheer was a hearing officer with the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services for four years. Judge Eigenheer also clerked for the Missouri Court
of Appeals, Southern District, in Springfield, Missouri, and the 4th Judicial District in Omaha,
Nebraska.

Judge Eigenheer received her Bachelor of Science from Missouri State University and her Juris
Doctorate from University of Missouri — Columbia School of Law where she was on Law Review
and in the Order of the Coif.

Attachment ST

CERTIFICATE OF NE

#S SB,

i ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH SERVICES

Wap ore ni 5a5t9

District 1- Tom O'Hateran
Heber-Overgaard Fire District
Avra Vale, Fire Distict
Eloy Fire District Ambutance
Colorado City Fire Department
Keamy Ambulance Senice
Guardian Medcal Transport
Forest Lakes Fire District
St Johns Emergency Services
Snoaflake-Taytor Ambutance Service
Golder Ranch Fire District
Life Line Ambutance Service, Ine
Southwest Ambulance of Safford
White Mountain Ambutance Service Inc
Professtonat Medical Transport

Coun Service
Southwest Ambulance of Casa Grande Inc
Ruraf Metro Corporation-Pinal
Hotbrook EMS Inc
Action Medical Service, in¢-Ganada
River Medal ine
Pinetop Volunteer Fire District
Lake Mohave Ranchos Fire District
Page Fire Dept Ambutance Service
Action Med'cat Service, Ine-VWinsiow
Atiowhead Fire & Medical Authority, Ins
Timber Mesa Fire and Medicat District
416 Puerco Vatey Ambiance Service
126 Tri-City Fire District Ambutance Service
427 Sacred Mountain Medical Service
436 American Medicat Response of Maricopa
439 ABC Ambulance
147 Maricopa Ambulance, LLC
154 San Carlos Apache Tribe - EMS

SSSSSSL SSS ARV AASSASBRBNaaa

REGEND
Pp County Boundary x
[J Congrassiona! District A

Fetnay 200

CESSITY BY

Le

CONGRESSIO

District 2 - Ann Kirkpatrick

WT
18
24
32
33
34
55
g2
100
403
108
19
420
432
438
150

Birida Ambu'ance Service

Fry Fire District

Sterra Vista Fire & Medical Services
Douglas Ambulance Service
Sunsites-Pearce Fire District Ambulance Service
Kord’s Southwest

Rurat/Metro Corporation Pima

Rincon Va'tey Fire District

Bisbee Fire Department

Healthcare Innovations, ine

Tucson Fire Department

Whetstone Fire District Ambulance Service
Arizona Ambutance Transport
Sonota-Elgin Ambu'ance

Northwest Fire District

Green Vahey Fite District

Disteict 3 - Raul Grijatva

OD

Avra Vatey Fire District

Jubac Fire District Ambulance
Buckeye Valley Volunteer Rescue Unt
Drexel Heights Fire Department

Rio Rice Fre District

Nogates Ambutance Service

Picture Rocks Fire District

Kord's Southwest

Rurat Metro Corporation - Yuma
Southwest Ambulance & Rescue of AZ
Professfonat Medical Transport

City of Phoenix ETS

Gia Bend Rescue/Ambulance
Somerton Fire Departmert

Ajo Ambulance, Ine

Tucson Fire Department

Rurta’Metro Corporation-Maricapa
Thres Points Fire District
Sonoita-Eigin Ambulance

Yurna Fire Department

Arivaca Fite District

American Medical Response of Maricopa
Northwest Fire District

ABC Ambulance

San Lu'’s Fite Department

Maricopa Arrbulance

Note:

Certificate of Necessity has some portion of its boundary within the Congressional District to be listed in it

District 4 ~ Paul Gosar

3 Copper Canyon Fire & Medical District
& Buckeye Va"ey Volunteer Rescue Unt
22 Colorado Cay Fire Department
35 Tri-Vatey Ambu'ance Senice
38 Mohave Va'ley Fire Dept Ambulance Service
39 Butead City Fire Department Ambutance
43 Golden Shores Fite Dept Ambutance
49 Veide Va"ey Ambulance Company
6% Rura/Metro Arizona Holdings
62 Life Line Ambance Service
65 Rural Metro Corporation - Yuma
66 Southwest Ambulance & Rescue of AZ
714 Professional Medical Transport
8&2 Fort Molave Mesa Fire Department
84 River Medical, inc
99 Lake Mohave Ranchos Fire District
405 Da'sy Mountain Fire District
169 Rural/Metro Corporation - Maricopa
414 North County Fire & Medical District
17 Mayer Fire District Ambulance Service
423 Verde VaTey Fire District
124 Beaver DamLittefield Fire District
131 Baker Emergency Medical Services
135 WPiamson Va"ley Fire District
136 American Medicat Response of Maricopa
439 ABC Ambulance
141 Surprise Fire & Medical Department
146 Pearia Fire and Medical Department
147 Marcopa Ambulance, LLG

District 5 - Andy Biggs

12 South County Fire and Medical District {AFMA}

71 ‘Professional Med:cal Transport

136 American Med:cal Response of Maricopa
139 ABC Ambutance

147 Maricopa Ambu'ance

District 6 - David Schweikert
71 Professional Medical Transport
76 City of Phoenix ETS
109 Rural Metro Corporation - Maricopa
436 American Medical Response of Maricopa
439 ABC Ambulance
147 Maricopa Ambulance

District 7 - Ruben Gallego
71 Professtona! Med:cat Transport
76 City of Phoenx ETS
109 Ci ron - Maricop
136 American Medical Response of Maricopa
139 ABC Ambu'ance
147 Maricopa Ambulance

District 8 - Debbie Lesko

& Buckeye Vavay Volunteer Rescue tint
62 Life Line Ambutance Senice
§6 Southwest Ambulance and Rescue of AZ
71 Professional Mecicat Transport
76 Cty of Phoenx ETS
105 Da’sy Mounatin Fire District
409 Rura’ Corpotation - Maricop
114 North County Fire & Medical District
136 Medical Response of Maricop
139 ABC Ambutance
141 Surprise Fire & Medical Department
146 Peoria Fire & Medical Departrent
147 Maricopa Ambulance

District 9 - Greg Stanton
71 Professional Medcal Transport
76 City of Phoenix ETS
109 Y Corporation ~ Mari
136 American Med‘cat Response of Maricopa
139 ASC Ambulance
147 Maricopa Ambulance
148 Tempe Fire Medical Rescue

Attachment / x

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2826: tobacco; vaping; penalties; legal age
Sponsor: Representative Osborne, LD 13
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Clarifies the age of a minor to be consistent with federal law and establishes penalties for
businesses that unlawfully furnishing tobacco and vapor products.

History
A person who knowingly sells, gives or furnishes cigars, cigarettes or cigarette papers or smoking

and chewing tobacco (tobacco products), a vapor product or any instrument or paraphernalia that
is solely designed for smoking or ingesting tobacco or shisha to a minor is guilty of a petty offense.

A minor who buys or possesses or knowingly accepts or receives such products or instruments
is guilty of a petty offense and if applicable must pay a fine of at least $100 or serve at least 30
hours of community service.

A minor who misrepresents their age to any other person by means of a written instrument of
identification with the intent to induce the other person to sell, give, or furnish such products or
instruments is guilty of a petty offense and is required to pay a fine of no more than $500.

Statute defines "Shisha” as any mixture of tobacco leaf and honey, molasses or dried fruit or any
other sweetener. "Vapor product" means a noncombustible tobacco-derived product containing
nicotine that employs a mechanical heating element, battery or circuit, regardless of shape or
size, that can be used to heat a liquid nicotine solution contained in cartridges. Vapor product
does not include any product that is regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration
(A.R.S. § 13-3622).

In 2019, the President signed legislation amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
and raising the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21 years.

Provisions

1. Replaces the term minor with a person who is under the minimum age of sale for tobacco
products as set by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in statute relating to selling or
purchasing tobacco and vapor products. (Sec. 1)

2. Prescribes penalties and restrictions for businesses that violate laws relating to furnishing of
tobacco and vapor products. (Sec. 1)

3. Specifies a business that violates an imposed restriction is subject to additional fines and
increased restrictions. (Sec. 1)

4. Prohibits a court from waiving a fine if the enterprise commits a second or subsequent violation
after 3 years from the first violation. (Sec. 1)

5. Requires at least one owner or manager and one person serving in a nonmanagerial position
to attend a tobacco retailer educational course, if ordered by a court. (Sec.1)

HB 2826
initials PRB Page 1 Commerce

Attachment_/ 4
6. instructs the Department of Revenue (Department), on notice from the Attorney General's
office, to suspend a person's use of the TPT class code for the retail sale of tobacco and vapor
products for a period specified by the AG if the person commits a second or subsequent
violation of laws relating to furnishing of tobacco and vapor products.

a) Stipulates the Department must notify the AG if the person reports revenue from the sale
of tobacco or vapor products during the suspension period. (Sec. 2)

7. Requires the Department to separately account for revenues collected from the gross
proceeds of sales of tobacco and vapor products. (Sec. 3, 4)

8. Contains a conditional enactment clause. (Sec. 5)
Makes technical changes. (Sec. 1, 3, 4)

Li Prop 105 (45 votes) [1 Prop 108 (40 votes} © Emergency (40 votes) [© Fiscal Note

HB 2826
Initials PRB Page 2 Commerce

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. __HB 2826

DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: D ?

PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci V4
Butler J
Chavez Ae
Epstein J
Kern J
Meza S/
Roberts 4
Grantham, Vice-Chairman J
Weninger, Chairman /

lo 6) 0 2
APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT 2% 7
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2853: furnishing tobacco; minors; enterprise penalties
Sponsor: Representative Bolick, LD 20
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Establishes penalties for businesses that unlawfully furnishing tobacco and vapor products.

History
A person who knowingly sells, gives or furnishes cigars, cigarettes or cigarette papers or smoking

and chewing tobacco (tobacco products), a vapor product or any instrument or paraphernalia that
is solely designed for smoking or ingesting tobacco or shisha to a minor is guilty of a petty offense.

A minor who buys or possesses or knowingly accepts or receives such products or instruments
is guilty of a petty offense and if applicable must pay a fine of at least $100 or serve at least 30
hours of community service.

A minor who misrepresents their age to any other person by means of a written instrument of
identification with the intent to induce the other person to sell, give, or furnish such products or
instruments is guilty of a petty offense and is required to pay a fine of no more than $500.

Statute defines "Shisha” as any mixture of tobacco leaf and honey, molasses or dried fruit or any
other sweetener. "Vapor product" means a noncombustible tobacco-derived product containing
nicotine that employs a mechanical heating element, battery or circuit, regardless of shape or
size, that can be used to heat a liquid nicotine solution contained in cartridges. Vapor product
does not include any product that is regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration
(A.R.S. § 13-3622).

Provisions
1. Prescribes penalties and restrictions for businesses that violate laws relating to furnishing of
tobacco and vapor products as follows:

a) Fora first offense, mandatory attendance at a court-approved tobacco retailer educational
course in lieu of or in addition to a fine of at least $500 but not more than $750;

b) For a second offense within 3 years, a fine of at least $1,000 but not more than $1,500
and mandatory attendance at a court-approved tobacco retailer educational course, and
the court must prohibit the enterprise from selling, giving or furnishing tobacco or vapor
products for 30 days.

c) For a third offense within 3 years, a fine of at least $2,000 but not more than $2,500 and
mandatory attendance at a court-approved tobacco retailer educational course, and the
court shall prohibit the enterprise from selling, giving or furnishing tobacco or vapor
products for 90 days.

d) For a fourth or subsequent offense within 3 years, a fine of at least $3,000 but not more
than $5,000 and mandatory attendance at a court-approved tobacco retailer educational
course and the court shall prohibit the enterprise from selling, giving or furnishing tobacco
or vapor products for 1 year. (Sec. 1)

HB 2853
Initials PRB Page 1 Commerce

Attachment of {
2. Specifies a business that violates an imposed restriction is subject to additional fines and
increased restrictions. (Sec. 1)

3. Prohibits a court from waiving a fine if the enterprise commits a second or subsequent violation
after 3 years from the first violation. (Sec. 1)

4. Requires at least one owner or manager and one person serving in a nonmanagerial position
to attend a tobacco retailer educational course, if ordered by a court. (Sec. 1)

CL] Prop 105 (45 votes) 1 Prop 108 (40 votes} [Emergency (40 votes) 0 Fiscal Note

HB 2853
Initials PRB Page 2 Commerce

Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regutar Session H.B. 2853

- PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2853
(Reference to printed bill)

1 Page 1, line 6, strike the first and second "minor" insert “underage person”

2 Lines 16 and 17, strike “minor” insert “PERSON WHO IS UNDER THE MINIMUM AGE OF
3 SALE FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS AS SET BY THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC
4 ACT”

5 Line 25, strike “minor” insert “PERSON WHO IS UNDER THE MINIMUM AGE OF SALE
6

7

8

9

FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS AS SET BY THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT”;
strike "minor's" insert “PERSON'S"; after "any" insert "OTHER"
Lines 42 and 43, strike “minor” insert “PERSON WHO IS UNDER THE MINIMUM AGE OF
SALE FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS AS SET BY THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC
10 ACT”
11 Page 2, tine 19, after “COURSE” insert a comma

12 Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER

Z2853WENINGER
02/17/2020
09:36 AM

H: LS/PRB/ra

Attachment Ax A

Adopted
Failed
Not Offered Analysts Initials - aa
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. — HB 2853
DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: D Zh 4A

PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT
Biasiucci /
Butler JS
Chavez S
Epstein JS
Kern WA
Meza 4
Roberts “
Grantham, Vice-Chairman /
Weninger, Chairman J

4 | 2 g j

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

VAI)M ir

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT. & 2

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2813: sports betting; historic racing; revenue
Sponsor: Representative Pierce, LD 1
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Allows for historic racing and sports betting to be conducted in this state.

History
The Arizona Department of Gaming (Department) was established in 1995 to monitor tribal

gaming activities in accordance with the Arizona tribal-state gaming compacts required by federal
law and as authorized by statute.

Federal law requires an Indian tribe and the state to negotiate for a tribal-state compact governing
the conduct of class III gaming activities on tribal lands (25 U.S.C. 2710). The tribal-state gaming
compacts between Arizona and the 22 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the state are
substantially identical and outline the regulatory framework governing class Ill gaming. The
Department's duties prescribed by statute and tribal-state gaming compacts include: 1) monitoring
-gaming operations; 2) investigating suspected compact violations; 3) conducting compact
compliance reviews of gaming operations, facilities and activities of facility operators; 4) certifying
gaming employees who are not enrolled tribal members; 5) certifying management contractors,
financiers, manufacturers and suppliers of gaming devices, providers of gaming services and
management officials; 6) administering the transfer of unused gaming device ailocations; 7)
providing problem gambling prevention, treatment and education; and 8) administering and
allocating Indian tribes’ state contributions through the Arizona Benefits Fund as outlined (A.R.S.
Title 5, Chapter 6).

Provisions

Historic Racing (Sec. 1)
1. Requires the Department to adopt rules to allow historic racing to be conducted as regulated
gambling at racetrack enclosures and additional wagering facilities.
a) Requires the rules to include license application procedures and approval, issuance,
renewal and revocation criteria.

2. Specifies the systems for wagering may be both manual and electronic forms of wagering.
a) Requires the wagering to be on a closed-loop system located within a racetrack enclosure
or additional wagering facility.

3. Instructs the Director (Director) of the Department to establish application, issuance and
renewal licensing fees.

4. Defines historic racing as a form of racing that establishes pari-mutuel pools from wagers
placed on previously conducted races and that is conduct by a commercial live-racing
permittee or additional wagering facility.

Prop 105 (45 votes) {1 Prop 108 (40 votes) 0 Emergency (40 votes) 1 Fiscal Note

HB 2813
Initials PRB Page 1 Commerce

seracnment 4
Tribal-State Gaming Compact (Sec. 2)
Removes statutory language that is incorporated into a tribal-state gaming compact that
stipulates tribal actions that maybe taken if, after May 2, 2002, state law changes to permit a
person or entity other than an Indian tribe to operate a gaming device, any form of class Ill
gaming or poker.

Sports Betting (Sec. 3)
instructs the Department to adopt rules to allow sports betting to be conducted as regulated
gambling at pari-mutuel racetrack, additional wagering facilities and casinos.
a) Specifies the rules must include licensure requirement; and
b) Adds the Director must establish licensing fees.

7. Allows the betting systems to be both manual and electronic forms on a closed-loop system.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.
22.

Requires the Department to regulate sports betting in a manner that is consistent with the
regulation of tribal gaming.

Allows an Indian tribe to operate sports betting through a tribal gaming operator who is subject
to licensure.

Specifies the licensure of the owner, partner, shareholder of the tribal gaming operator does
not include the members or government officials of an Indian tribe.

Directs the Department to impose and collect an unspecified percent amount of the licensee's
adjusted gross sports betting receipts.

Establishes the racing purse enhancement fund consisting of monies collected from sports
betting receipts.

a) Requires the Department to administer the fund; and

b) Outlines the distribution of monies.

Defines pertinent terms.

Miscellaneous
Includes sports betting and historic racing that is conducted pursuant to statute as lawful
regulated gambling. (Sec. 5)

Exempts sports betting and historic racing from statute relating to prohibited betting and
wagering. (Sec. 6)

Includes sports betting that is conducted outside a racetrack enclosure, additional wagering
facility or tribal casino to the amusement tax classification. (Sec.:7)

Allows certain revenues collected by an indian tribe for sports betting to be deducted from the
amusement classification tax base. (Sec. 7)

Limits amounts subject to state and local taxes to 6.75% of the adjusted gross receipts. (Sec.
7)

Specifies gross income and gross proceeds of sale means the receipts remaining after
deducting the monies paid for winnings from gross receipts. (Sec. 7)

Exempts the Department from rulemaking for one year. (Sec. 8)
Contains a Prop 105 clause. (Sec. 9)
Makes conforming changes. (Sec. 2, 4)

HB 2813

Initials PRB Page 2 Commerce

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO, —_ HB 2813

DATE February 18, 2020 motion OF.

PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci Y
Butler VA
Chavez vA
Epstein Y
Kern WA
Meza VA
Roberts vA
Grantham, Vice-Chairman Y
Weninger, Chairman Y
lA | o}] 2
Lives Pne-Thahken/
APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT_.25_
ARIZONA INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION

ADNOGALES@ EDUCATES & PARTNERS 2 PROMOTES

February 17, 2020

House Commerce Committee
Arizona State Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2813 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting; Historic Racing -
OPPOSED

Dear Commerce Committee Members:

The Arizona Indian Gaming Association (“AIGA”) opposes HB 2813, which
proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to unilaterally change the
existing tribal-state compact’s exclusivity provisions. HB 2813 would legalize previously
illegal sports betting and historic racing gambling in the State of Arizona.

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt on-
going tribal-state compact negotiations; trigger the existing “poison pill” provisions of
the tribal-state compact upon enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature;
and could impair the interests of gaming tribes under the existing tribal-state compact
in violation of the Arizona Constitution. HB 2813 does not demonstrate considered
public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and is inconsistent with the
voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in 2002.

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG) to adopt rules to
allow historic racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities.
The bill would allow for manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic
racing.”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt
rules regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities,
and casinos, and licensing of tribal gaming operators. Further, the bill would impose a
tax on operators and allocates sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement
Fund.”

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state
compact exclusivity provisions and strike the “poison pill” remedies. It would also
remove the reference to exclusivity being consideration for payments by the compact

521 S. 48" Street - Suite 107 « Tempe, AZ 85281 - Tel: (480) 284-4082
www.azindiangaming.org

Attachment. 2?

Opposing HB 2813

By Arizona Indian Gaming Association
February 17, 2020

Page 2 of 6

tribes, but would still require tribes to make tribal contributions in accordance with the
existing contributions.

Historic Racing

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do not encompass pari-mutuel historic
racing. The term “historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal
(e.g., a slot machine) to place bets on completed horse races in which the bettors do not
know the outcome of the race. Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC v. State, 134 P.3d
1223, 1229-30 (Wyo. 2006). Historic racing is also known as “historical horse racing,”
“Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC’s registered trademark for its patented system),
“racing replay,” or “replayed races.” Id. at 1224-25; Racetech, LLC v. Kentucky Downs,
LLC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 709, 711 (W.D. Ky. 2016); State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale, 853
N.W.2d 494, 499-500 (Neb. 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-32-605 (2018); see also
Wyoming Downs, 134 P.3d at 1225 (historic racing also encompasses completed dog
races).

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has described historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant
Racing terminal and then chooses a horse identified by a
number. The terminal then displays a video recording of the
race for the better [sic] to watch, or, as the name “Instant
Racing” implies, the bettor may forego the excitement of the
actual race by opting to see immediately the results of the
race and the outcome of his wager. Bettors are not given
information from which they might identify the specific time
and place of the actual running of the race, or the identity of
the horse, but some statistical data regarding the horses is
provided for bettors who wish to place their bets with some
degree of deliberation.

Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 726, 730
(Ky. 2014). The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the
same time, as opposed to traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets
on one race at a time. State ex rel. Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500.

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the
time of the Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could
initiate action under § 3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018
Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich.

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player
terminals has been prohibited in Arizona since before

521 S, 48% Street - Suite 107 - Tempe, AZ 85281 + Tel: (480} 284-4082
www.azindiangaming.org

Opposing HB 2813

By Arizona Indian Gaming Association
February 17, 2020

Page 3 of 6

May 1, 2002. Any change to Arizona’s pre-May 1,
2002 gaming laws could cause one of the signatories
to the Arizona Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the
“Compact”) to initiate action under Compact section
3(h)(4), which would limit the State’s ability to
regulate some aspects of tribal gaming and
dramatically decrease the revenues the tribes must
provide to the State. Accordingly, Arizona’s Indian
Gaming Compact could be in jeopardy if the State
permits historic pari-mutuel wagering.”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law v. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i.e., off-
reservation sports betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators.

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands. The
bets or wagers at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place
off-reservation, i.e., not on Indian lands.

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by
tribes or tribal operators (i.e., third parties) under state law. Importantly, the bill
includes a tax provision, which imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of
sales related to the sports betting. IGRA would prohibit the imposition of such a tax if
this gaming is considered Indian gaming. If the sports betting is operated under State
law, then the tax may be permissible because the operator (a third party) would be
offering the sports betting under State law.

The ambiguity in HB 2813 is unacceptable and will result in a potential State
violation of federal law as well as triggering the “poison pill’ provisions of the existing
tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compact; Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates
that a tribal-state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state and a
tribe. That is what happened as a result of Proposition 202. A unilateral amendment to
the tribal-state compact would be inconsistent with the requirements of a mutually
negotiated tribal-state compact under IGRA. Likewise, it is doubtful that the Secretary
of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve such an amendment as required by
IGRA.

This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state
compact. This bill would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of
the exclusivity provisions. The Compact provides at Section 3(h):

521 S. 48" Street - Suite 107 « Tempe, AZ 85281 - Tel: (480) 284-4082
www.azindiangaming.org
Opposing HB 2813
By Arizona Indian Gaming Association
February 17, 2020

Page 4 of 6

If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is
interpreted in a final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction or in a final order of a State administrative
agency to permit either a Person or entity other than an
Indian tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any form of Class III
Gaming (including Video Lottery Terminals) that is not
authorized under this Compact, other than gambling that is
lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or
poker, other than poker that is lawful on May 1, 2002
pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302... then, upon the effective
date of such State law, final judgment, or final order: (A)
[t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to
operate Class III Gaming Devices without limitations ... and
without the need to amend this Compact (B) [t]he Tribe shall
be authorized under this Compact to operate table games,
without limitations ... and without the need to amend this
Compact...and(C)...the Tribe’s obligation under Section
12 to make contributions to the State shall be immediately
reduced...

Compact § 3(h)(4){A)-(C) (2003), available at
hitps://gaming.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/compact.final_.pdf

(emphasis added).

The Compact further provides:

The provisions of this Section 3(h) shall not apply to casino
nights operated by non-profit or charitable organizations
pursuant to and qualified under A.R.S. § 13-3302(B); to
social gambling as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any
paper product lottery games, including ticket dispensing
devices of the nature used prior to May 1, 2002, by the
Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked recreational
pools or similar activities operated by and on the premises of
retailers licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as
may be authorized by State law.

Id. at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill”
because the State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not
authorized on May 1, 2002 and both forms of gaming would be considered Class IIT

521 S. 48" Street « Suite 107 - Tempe, AZ 85281 - Tel: (480) 284-4082
www.azindiangaming.org

Opposing HB 2813

By Arizona Indian Gaming Association
February 17, 2020

Page 5 of 6

gaming under IGRA. Hence, the State would lose approximately $98 million per year in
contributions to the Arizona Benefits Fund.

Voter Protection Act

This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove
the exclusivity provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for
payments.

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts
allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land.
In return, tribes would contribute 1% to 8% of "gross gaming revenue” (defined as the
difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the
state to fund programs for problem gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary
increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement, trauma and emergency
services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs benefiting the
general public. These distributions are outside the regular legislative process.

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming
compact with each Indian tribe that requests it.

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a
gaming compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202.

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify
voter initiatives and referenda such as Proposition 202. When the Legislature deviates
from a voter-approved law, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify
the Legislature's otherwise plenary authority. A-R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, C),
(14). Nor may it amend or supersede a voter-approved law unless the proposed
legislation “furthers the purposes” of the initiative or referendum measure and is
approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives and Senate. Ariz.

Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)(©), (44).

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition
202 or that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal
interests and rights under existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion

The Legislature should reject HB 2813. Arizona legalization and regulation of
sports betting and historic racing would jeopardize the policies underlying the tribal-
state compact’s “mutually beneficial and well-regulated gaming system” as well as on-
going, comprehensive negotiations between the Governor and Arizona tribes, Passage
of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal contributions discussed above.

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed
legislation regarding sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to
amend the existing tribal-state compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs to be a
win-win scenario for both the State and Tribes. The appropriate time and place for

5215S. 48" Street « Suite 107 - Tempe, AZ 85281 - Tel: (480) 284-4082
www.azindiangaming.org
Opposing HB 2813

By Arizona Indian Gaming Association
February 17, 2020

Page 6 of 6

those discussions are tribal-state compact negotiations, which are on-going. The

Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and limited gambling in the State.

The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed to ensure a
comprehensive discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that
could jeopardize the interests and expectations of the State and tribes.

Thank you for your consideration of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association’s
comments.

Sincerely,

Gwendena Lee-Gatewood, Chairperson
Arizona Indian Gaming Association

5215S. 48" Street » Suite 107 - Tempe, AZ 85281 - Tel: (480) 284-4082
www.azindiangaming.org

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

Community Government
42507 W, Peters & Nall Road « Maricopa, Arizona 85138 + Telephone: (620) 868-1000 + Fax: (620) 568-1001

February 18, 2020

House Commerce Committee
Arizona State Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2813 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting; Historic Racing

Dear Commerce Committee Members:

The Ak-Chin Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”)
opposes HB 2813, which proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to
unilaterally change the existing tribal-state compact's exclusivity provisions, HB 2813
would legalize previously illegal sports betting and historic racing gambling in the State
of Arizona.

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt on-
going tribal-state compact negotiations; trigger the existing “poison pill” provisions of
the tribal-state compact upon enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature;
and could impair the interests of gaming tribes under the existing tribal-state compact
in violation of the Arizona Constitution, HB 28 13 does not demonstrate considered
public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and is inconsistent with the
voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in 2002,

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG) to adopt rules to
allow historic racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities,
The bill would allow for manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic
racing,”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt
rules regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities,
and casinos, and licensing of tribal gaming operators, Further, the bill would impose a

tax on operators and allocates sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement
Fund,”

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state
compact exclusivity provisions and strike the “poison pill” remedies, It would also
remove the reference to exclusivity being consideration for payments by the compact

tribes, but would still require tribes to make tribal contributions in accordance with the
existing contributions,

Historic Racing

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do not encompass pari-mutuel historic
racing. The term “historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal
(e.g., a slot machine) to place bets on completed horse races in which the bettors do not
know the outcome of the race, Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC v. State, 134 P.gd
1223, 1229-30 (Wyo. 2006), Historic racing is also known as “historical horse racing,”
“Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC’s registered trademark for its patented system),
“racing replay,” or “replayed races,” Id, at 1224-25; Racetech, LLC uv, Kentucky Downs,
LLC, 169 F, Supp, 34 709, 711 (W.D, Ky. 2016); State ex rel, Loontjer v, Gale, 853
N.W.2d 494, 499-500 (Neb. 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. Ann, 8 44-32-605 (2018); see also
Wyoming Downs, 134 P.3d at 1225 (historic racing also encompasses completed dog
races),

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has deseribed historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant
Racing terminal and then chooses a horse identified bya
number. The terminal then displays a video recording of the
race for the better [sic] to watch, or, as the name “Instant
Racing” implies, the bettor may forego the excitement of the
actual race by opting to see immediately the results of the
race and the outcome of his wager. Bettors are not given
information from which they might identify the specific time
and place of the actual running of the race, or the identity of
the horse, but some statistical data regarding the horses is
provided for bettors who wish to place their bets with some
degree of deliberation,

Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Ine., 423 8.W.3d 726, 730
(Ky. 2014), The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the
same time, as opposed to traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets
on one race at a time, State ex rel. Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500,

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the
time of the Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could
initiate action under § 3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018
Attormmey General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich,

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player
terminals has been prohibited in Arizona since before

May 1, 2002. Any change to Arizona’s pre-May 1,
2002 gaming laws could cause one of the signatories
to the Arizona Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the
“Compact”) to initiate action under Compact section
3(h)(2), which would limit the State's ability to
regulate some aspects of tribal gaming and
dramatically decrease the revenues the tribes must
provide to the State. Accordingly, Arizona’s Indian
Gaming Compact could be in jeopardy if the State
permits historic pari-mutuel wagering,”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law v. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i,e., off-
reservation sports betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators,

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands. The
bets or wagers at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place
off-reservation, i.e., not on Indian lands,

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by
tribes or tribal operators (i.e, third parties) under state law. Importantly, the bill
includes a tax provision, which imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of
sales related to the sports betting, IGRA would prohibit the imposition of such a tax if
this gaming is considered Indian gaming. Ifthe sports betting is operated under State
law, then the tax may be permissible because the operator (a third party) would be
offering the sports betting under State law,

The ambiguity in HB 2819 is unacceptable and will result in a potential State
violation of federal law as well as triggering the “poison pill” provisions of the existing
tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compact; Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates
that a tribal-state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state anda
tribe, That is what happened as a result of Proposition 202, A unilateral amendment to
the tribal-state compact would be inconsistent with the requirements of a mutually
negotiated tribal-state compact under IGRA. Likewise, it is doubtful that the Secretary
of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve such an amendment as required by
IGRA,

This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state
compact. This bill would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of
the exclusivity provisions, The Compact provides at Section 3(h):
If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is
interpreted in a final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction or in a final order of a State administrative
agency to permit either a Person or entity other than an
Indian tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any form of Class ITI
Gaming (including Video Lottery Terminals) that is not
authorized under this Compact, other than gambling that is -
lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or
poker, other than poker that is lawful on May 1, 2002
pursuant to ARS, § 13-3302,.,, then, upon the effective
date of such State law, final Judgment, or final order: (A)
[t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to
operate Class III Gaming Devices without limitations... and
without the need to amend this Compact (B) [t]he Tribe shall
be authorized under this Compact to operate table games,
without limitations .. . and without the need to amend this
Compact... and (C)...the Tribe’s obligation under Section
12 to make contributions to the State shall be immediately
reduced...

Compact § 3(h)(1)(A)-(C) (2003), available at
https://gaming.az.gov/ sites/default/files/ documents/files/ compact.final_.pdf
(emphasis added),

The Compact further provides:

The provisions of this Section 3(h) shall not apply to casino
nights operated by non-profit or charitable organizations
pursuant to and qualified under A.R.S, § 13-3302(B); to
social gambling as defined in A.R.S, 8 13-3301(7); to any
paper product lottery games, including ticket dispensing
devices of the nature used prior to May 1, 2002, by the
Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked recreational
pools or similar activities operated by and on the premises of
retailers licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as
may be authorized by State law,

Id. at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added),

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill”
because the State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not
authorized on May 1, 2002 and both forms of gaming would be considered Class IIT
gaming under IGRA. Hence, the State would lose approximately $98 million per year in
contributions to the Arizona Benefits Fund,

Voter Protection Act

This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove
the exclusivity provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for
payments.

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts
allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land,
In return, tribes would contribute 1% to 8% of "gross gaming revenue" (defined as the
difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the
state to fund programs for problem gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary
increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement, trauma and emergency
services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs benefiting the
general public, These distributions are outside the regular legislative process,

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into anew gaming
compact with each Indian tribe that requests it,

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a
gaming compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202,

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify
voter initiatives and referenda such as Proposition 202, When the Legislature deviates
from a voter-approved law, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify
the Legislature's otherwise plenary authority. A.R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, C),
(14). Nor may it amend or supersede a voter-approved law unless the proposed
legislation “furthers the purposes” of the initiative or referendum measure and is
approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives and Senate, Ariz,
Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)(C), (14).

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition
202 or that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal
interests and rights under existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion

The Legislature should reject HB 2813, Arizona legalization and regulation of
sports betting and historic racing would jeopardize the policies underlying the tribal-
state compact’s “mutually beneficial and well-regulated gaming system” as well as on-
going, comprehensive negotiations between the Governor and Arizona tribes, Passage

of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal contributions discussed above,

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed
legislation regarding sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to
amend the existing tribal-state compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs to be a
win-win scenario for both the State and Tribes, The appropriate time and place for
those discussions are tribal-state compact negotiations, which are on-going. The
Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and limited gambling in the State,
The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed to ensure a
comprehensive discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that
could jeopardize the interests and expectations of the State and tribes,

Thank you for your consideration of the Ak-Chin Indian Community comments,

Sincerely,

—s

Fa

Gabriel Lopez, Vice-Chairman
Ak-Chin Indian Community

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians

February 18, 2020

House Commerce Committee
Arizona State Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2819 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting; Historic Racing

Dear Commerce Committee Members:

The Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”)
opposes HB 2813, which proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to
unilaterally change the existing tribal-state compact’s exclusivity provisions. HB 2813
would legalize previously illegal sports betting and historic racing gambling in the State
of Arizona.

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt
on-going tribal-state compact negotiations; trigger the existing “poison pill” provisions
of the tribal-state compact upon enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the
Legislature; and could impair the interests of gaming tribes under the existing
tribal-state compact in violation of the Arizona Constitution. HB 2813 does not
demonstrate considered public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and is
inconsistent with the voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in
2002,

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG) to adopt rules to
allow historic racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities,
The bill would allow for manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic
racing.”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt
rules regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities,
and casinos, and licensing of tribal gaming operators, Further, the bill would impose a
tax on operators and allocates sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement
Fund.”

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state
compact exclusivity provisions and strike the “poison pill” remedies, It would also
remove the reference to exclusivity being consideration for payments by the compact
tribes, but would still require tribes to make tribal contributions in accordance with the
existing contributions.

Historic Racing

Tribal Affairs

HC 65 Box 2 Phone (928) 643-7245
Fredonia, Arizona 86022 Fax (888) 939-3777

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do‘not encompass pari-mutuel historic
racing. The term “historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal
(e.g., a slot machine) to place bets on completed horse races in which the bettors do not
know the outcome of the race. Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC v. State, 134 P.3d
1223, 1229-30 (Wyo. 2006). Historic racing is also known as “historical horse racing,”
“Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC’s registered trademark for its patented system),
“racing replay,” or “replayed races.” Id. at 1224-25; Racetech, LLC v. Kentucky Downs,
LLC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 709, 711 (W.D. Ky. 2016); State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale, 853
N.W.2d 494, 499-500 (Neb. 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-32-605 (2018); see also
Wyoming Downs, 134 P.3d at 1225 (historic racing also encompasses completed dog

races).

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has described historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant Racing terminal
and then chooses a horse identified by a number. The
terminal then displays a video recording of the race for the
better [sic] to watch, or, as the name “Instant Racing”
implies, the bettor may forego the excitement of the actual
race by opting to see immediately the results of the race and
the outcome of his wager. Bettors are not given information
from which they might identify the specific time and place of
the actual running of the race, or the identity of the horse,
but some statistical data regarding the horses is provided for
bettors who wish to place their bets with some degree of
deliberation.

Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 726, 730
(Ky. 2014). The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the
same time, as opposed to traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets
on one race at a time. State ex rel. Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500.

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the
time of the Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could
initiate action under § 3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018
Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich.

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player terminals
has been prohibited in Arizona since before May 1,
2002. Any change to Arizona’s pre-May 1, 2002
gaming laws could cause one of the signatories to the
Arizona Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the

“Compact”) to initiate action under Compact section
3(h)(1), which would limit the State’s ability to
regulate some aspects of tribal gaming and
dramatically decrease the revenues the tribes must
provide to the State. Accordingly, Arizona’s Indian
Gaming Compact could be in jeopardy if the State
permits historic pari-mutuel wagering.”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law v. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i.e.,
off-reservation sports betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators.

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands. The
bets or wagers at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place
off-reservation, i.e., not on Indian lands.

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by
tribes or tribal operators (i.e., third parties) under state law. Importantly, the bill
includes a tax provision, which imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of
sales related to the sports betting. IGRA would prohibit the imposition of such a tax if
this gaming is considered Indian gaming. If the sports betting is operated under State
law, then the tax may be permissible because the operator (a third party) would be
offering the sports betting under State law.

The ambiguity in HB 2813 is unacceptable and will result in a potential State
violation of federal law as well as triggering the “poison pill” provisions of the existing
tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compact; Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates
that a tribal-state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state and a
tribe. That is what happened as a result of Proposition 202. A unilateral amendment to
the tribal-state compact would be inconsistent with the requirements of a mutually
negotiated tribal-state compact under IGRA. Likewise, it is doubtful that the Secretary
of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve such an amendment as required by
IGRA.

This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state
compact. This bill would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of
the exclusivity provisions. The Compact provides at Section 3(h):

If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is interpreted in a final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or in a final
order of a State administrative agency to permit either a

Person or entity other than an Indian tribe to operate
Gaming Devices; any form of Class Ili Gaming (including
Video Lottery Terminals) that is not authorized under this

Compact, other than gambling that is lawful on May 1, 2002

pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or poker, other than poker that
is lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302...
then, upon the effective date of such State law, final
judgment, or final order: (A) [t]he Tribe shall be authorized
under this Compact to operate Class III Gaming Devices
without limitations . . . and without the need to amend this
Compact (B) [t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this
Compact to operate table games, without limitations... and
without the need to amend this Compact ...and(C)... the
Tribe’s obligation under Section 12 to make contributions to
the State shall be immediately reduced ....

Compact § 3(h)(1)(A)-(C) (2003), available at
https://gaming.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/compact.final_.pdf
(emphasis added).

The Compact further provides:

The provisions of this Section 3(h) shall not apply to casino nights

operated by non-profit or charitable organizations pursuant
to and qualified under A.R.S. § 13-3302(B); to social
gambling as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any paper

product lottery games, including ticket dispensing devices of
the nature used prior to May 1, 2002, by the Arizona lottery;

or to low-wager, non-banked recreational pools or similar
activities operated by and on the premises of retailers
licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as may be
authorized by State law.

Id. at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill”
because the State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not
authorized on May 1, 2002 and both forms of gaming would be considered Class III
gaming under IGRA. Hence, the State would lose approximately $98 million per year in
contributions to the Arizona Benefits Fund.

Voter Protection Act
This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove
the exclusivity provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for

payments.

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts
allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land.
In return, tribes would contribute 1% to 8% of "gross gaming revenue” (defined as the
difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the
state to fund programs for problem gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary
increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement, trauma and emergency
services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs benefiting the
general public. These distributions are outside the regular legislative process.

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming
compact with each Indian tribe that requests it,

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a
gaming compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202.

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify
voter initiatives and referenda such as Proposition 202. When the Legislature deviates
from a voter-approved law, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify
the Legislature’s otherwise plenary authority. A.R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, C),
(i4). Nor may it amend or supersede a voter-approved law unless the proposed
legislation “furthers the purposes” of the initiative or referendum measure and is
approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives and Senate. Ariz.
Const. art, 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)(C), (14).

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition
202 or that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal
interests and rights under existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion

The Legislature should reject HB 2813. Arizona legalization and regulation of
sports betting and historic racing would jeopardize the policies underlying the
tribal-state compact’s “mutually beneficial and well-regulated gaming system” as well as
on-going, comprehensive negotiations between the Governor and Arizona tribes,
Passage of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal contributions discussed above.

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed
legislation regarding sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to
amend the existing tribal-state compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs to be a
win-win scenario for both the State and Tribes. The appropriate time and place for
those discussions are tribal-state compact negotiations, which are on-going. The
Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and limited gambling in the State.
The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed to ensure a
comprehensive discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that
could jeopardize the interests and expectations of the State and tribes.

Thank you for your consideration of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians
comments,

Sincerely,

ona’ Segundo

Chairwoman

wndo

xe; = Tribal Council
Arizona House Commerce Committee Members

Terry Rambler Tao Etpison

Chairman P.O. Box 0, San Carlos, Arizona 85550 Vice-Chairman
Phone (928) 475-1600 « Fax (928) 475-2567

February 18, 2020

Via Email & U.S, Postal Service

Honorable Jamescita Peshlakai
Senator
E-M: jpeshlakai@azleg.gov

Honorable Arlando Teller
Representative

E-M: ateller@azlep.gov

Honorable Myron Tsosie
Representative

E-M: mtsosie@azlep.gov
Arizona District 7

&

Honorable Members of the Commerce Committee
Arizona House of Representatives

1700 West Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2813 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting; Historic Racing

Dear Senator Peshlakai, Reps. Teller & Tsosie, Commerce Committee Members:

On behalf of the over 16,900 members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe (the “Tribe”), I
oppose HB 2813, which proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to unilaterally
change the existing tribal-state compact’s exclusivity provisions. HB 2813 would legalize
previously illegal sports betting and historic racing gambling in the State of Arizona.
Senator Peshlakai, et al.
Re: HB2813

February 18, 2020

Page 2 of 6

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt on-going tribal-
state compact negotiations; trigger the existing “poison pill” provisions of the tribal-state compact
upon enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature; and could impair the interests of
gaming tribes under the existing tribal-state compact in violation of the Arizona Constitution. HB
2813 does not demonstrate considered public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and
is inconsistent with the voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in 2002.

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (“ADOG”) to adopt rules to allow
historic racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities, The bill would
allow for manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic racing.”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt rules
regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities, and casinos,
and licensing of tribal gaming operators. Further, the bill would impose a tax on operators and
allocates sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement Fund.”

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state compact
exclusivity provisions and strike the “poison pill” remedies. It would also remove the reference
to exclusivity being consideration for payments by the compact tribes, but would still require
tribes to make tribal contributions in accordance with the existing contributions.

Historic Racing

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do not encompass pari-mutuel historic racing. The
term “historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal (e.g., a slot machine) to
place bets on completed horse races in which the bettors do not know the outcome of the race.
Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC y. State, 134 P.3d 1223, 1229-30 (Wyo. 2006). Historic
racing is also known as “historical horse racing,” “Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC’s registered
trademark for its patented system), “racing replay,” or “replayed races.” Id. at 1224-25; Racetech,
LLC v. Kentucky Downs, LLC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 709, 711 (W.D. Ky. 2016); State ex rel. Loontjer
v, Gale, 853 N.W.2d 494, 499-500 (Neb. 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-32-605 (2018); see
aiso Wyoming Downs, 134 P.3d at 1225 (historic racing also encompasses completed dog races).

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has described historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant Racing
terminal and then chooses a horse identified by a number. The
terminal then displays a video recording of the race for the better
[sic] to watch, or, as the name “Instant Racing” implies, the bettor
may forego the excitement of the actual race by opting to see
immediately the results of the race and the outcome of his wager.
Bettors are not given information from which they might identify
the specific time and place of the actual running of the race, or the

Senator Peshlakai, et al.
Re: HB2813

February 18, 2020

Page 3 of 6

identity of the horse, but some statistical data regarding the horses
is provided for bettors who wish to place their bets with some
degree of deliberation.

Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 §.W.3d 726, 730 (Ky.
2014). The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the same time, as

opposed to traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets on one race at a time.
State ex rel. Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500.

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the time of the
Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could initiate action under §
3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by
Mark Brnovich.

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player
terminals has been prohibited in Arizona since before May
1, 2002. Any change to Arizona’s pre-May 1, 2002 gaming
laws could cause one of the signatories to the Arizona
Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the “Compact”) to initiate
action under Compact section 3(h)(1), which would limit the
State’s ability to regulate some aspects of tribal gaming and
dramatically decrease the revenues the tribes must provide
to the State. Accordingly, Arizona’s Indian Gaming
Compact could be in jeopardy if the State permits historic
pari-mutuel wagering.”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law v. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i.e., off-reservation
sports betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators.

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands, The bets or
wagers at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place off-reservation,
ie., not on Indian lands.

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by tribes or
tribal operators (i.e., third parties) under state law, Importantly, the bill includes a tax provision,
which imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of sales related to the sports betting.
IGRA would prohibit the imposition of such a tax if this gaming is considered Indian gaming. If
the sports betting is operated under State law, then the tax may be permissible because the
operator (a third party) would be offering the sports betting under State law.

Senator Peshlakai, et al.
Re; HB2813

February 18, 2020

Page 4 of 6

The ambiguity in HB 2813 is unacceptable and will result ina potential State violation of
federal law as well as triggering the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compact; Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates that a
tribal-state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state and a tribe. That is what
happened as a result of Proposition 202. A unilateral amendment to the tribal-state compact
would be inconsistent with the requirements of a mutually negotiated tribal-state compact under
IGRA, Likewise, it is doubtful that the Secretary of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve
such an amendment as required by IGRA.

This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state compact.
This bill would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of the exclusivity
provisions. The Compact provides at Section 3(h):

If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is interpreted in a
final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or ina final
order of a State administrative agency to permit either a Person or
entity other than an Indian tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any
form of Class III Gaming (including Video Lottery Terminals) that
is not authorized under this Compact, other than gambling that is
lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or poker,
other than poker that is lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S, §
13-3302... then, upon the effective date of such State law, final
judgment, ot final order: (A) [t]he Tribe shall be authorized under
this Compact to operate Class II Gaming Devices without
limitations... and without the need to amend this Compact (B)
[t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to operate table
games, without limitations .. , and without the need to amend this
Compact... and (C)... the Tribe’s obligation under Section 12 to
make contributions to the State shall be immediately reduced...

Compact § 3(h)(1)(A)-(C) (2003), available at
https://gaming .az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/compact.final sbdf (emphasis added).

The Compact further provides:

The provisions of this Section 3(h) shall not apply to casino nights
operated by non-profit or charitable organizations pursuant to and
qualified under A.R.S. § 13-3302(B); to social gambling as defined
in A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any paper product lottery games,

including ticket dispensing devices of the nature used prior to May

Senator Peshlakai, et al.
Re: HB2813

February 18, 2020

Page 5 of 6

1, 2002, by the Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked

recreational pools or similar activities operated by and on the
premises of retailers licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised
Statutes, as may be authorized by State law.

id. at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill” because
the State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not authorized on May
1, 2002 and both forms of gaming would be considered Class III gaming under IGRA. Hence, the
State would lose approximately $98 million per year in contributions to the Arizona Benefits
Fund.

Voter Protection Act

This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove the
exclusivity provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for payments.

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts allowing
Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land. In return, tribes
would contribute 1% to 8% of "gross gaming revenue" (defined as the difference between gaming
wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the state to fund programs for problem
gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary increases, dropout prevention, instructional
improvement, trauma and emergency services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local
government programs benefiting the general public. These distributions are outside the regular
legislative process.

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming compact with
each Indian tribe that requests it.

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a gaming
compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202.

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify voter
initiatives and referenda such as Proposition 202. When the Legislature deviates from a voter-
approved law, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify the Legislature's
otherwise plenary authority. A.R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, C), (14). Nor may it amend or
supersede a voter-approved law unless the proposed legislation “furthers the purposes” of the
initiative or referendum measure and is approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of
Representatives and Senate. Ariz, Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)(C), (14).

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition 202 or that
it furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal interests and rights
under existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion
Senator Peshlakai, et al.
Re; HB2813

February 18, 2020

Page 6 of 6

Arizona legalization and regulation of sports betting and historic racing would jeopardize
the policies underlying the tribal-state compact's “mutually beneficial and well-regulated gaming
system” as well as on-going, comprehensive negotiations between the Governor and Arizona
iribes, Passage of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal contributions discussed above.

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed legislation
regarding sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to amend the existing
tribal-state compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs to be a win-win scenario for both the
State and Tribes, The appropriate time and place for those discussions are tribal-state compact
negotiations, which are on-going. The Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and
limited gambling in the State. The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed
to ensure a comprehensive discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that
could jeopardize the interests and expectations of the State and tribes.

For these reasons, the Legislature must reject HB 2813.

As we say in our Apache language, Ahi’yi’é (thank you) in advance for your consideration
of our request.

Sincerely,

SAN CARLOS Ae
Terry Lay

Chairman

Co Sen Frank Pratt, Dist. 8, fprattdazlez pov
Rep, David L. Cook, Dist. 8, deook/dazlep poy
Thomas “TS” Shope, Jr, Dist. 8. tshopeWazlep nov

Carla Johnson, Exec Dir., AIGA, Carla Johnsonazindiangaming,oia

San Carlos Apache Tribe

Tao Etpison, Vice Chairman
San Carlos Council Members
Michelle Young. Treasurer
Matt Olin, CEO, SCAGE
Jolene Noline, Exec. Dir, TGO
A.B. Ritchie, AG, DOJ

Chrotio
GWENDENA LEE-GATEWOOD

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE CHAIRWOMAN
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE

February 16, 2020

House Commerce Committee
Arizona State Capito! Complex
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2813 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting; Historic Racing -
OPPOSED

Dear Commerce Committee Members:

The White Mountain Apache Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe opposes
HB 2813, which proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to
unilaterally change the existing tribal-state compact’s exclusivity provisions. HB 2813
would legalize previously illegal sports betting and historic racing gambling in the State
of Arizona.

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt on-
going tribal-state compact negotiations; trigger the existing “poison pill” provisions of
the tribal-state compact upon enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature;
and could impair the interests of gaming tribes under the existing tribal-state compact
in violation of the Arizona Constitution. HB 2813 does not demonstrate considered
public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and is inconsistent with the
voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in 2002.

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG) to adopt rules to
allow historic racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities.
The bill would allow for manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic
racing.”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt
rules regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities,

PO BOX 1150 WHITERIVER, AZ 85941 928-338-2500

and casinos, and licensing of tribal gaming operators. Further, the bill would impose a
tax on operators and allocates sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement
Fund,

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state
compact exclusivity provisions and strike the “poison pill” remedies, It would also
remove the reference to exclusivity being consideration for payments by the compact
tribes, but would still require tribes to make tribal contributions in accordance with the
existing contributions.

Historic Racing

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do not encompass pari-mutuel historic
racing. The term “historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal
(e.g., a slot machine) to place bets on completed horse races in which the bettors do not
know the outcome of the race. Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC v. State, 134 P.3d
1223, 1229-30 (Wyo. 2006). Historic racing is also known as “historical horse racing,”
“Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC’s registered trademark for its patented system),
“racing replay,” or “replayed races.” Id. at 1224-25; Racetech, LLC v. Kentucky Downs,
LLC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 709, 714 (W.D. Ky. 2016); State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale, 853
N.W.2d 494, 499-500 (Neb. 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. Ann, § 44-32-605 (2018); see also
Wyoming Downs, 134 P.gd at 1225 (historic racing also encompasses completed dog
races).

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has described historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant
Racing terminal and then chooses a horse identified by a
number. The terminal then displays a video recording of the
race for the better [sic] to watch, or, as the name “Instant
Racing” implies, the bettor may forego the excitement of the
actual race by opting to see immediately the results of the
race and the outcome of his wager. Bettors are not given
information from which they might identify the specific time
and place of the actual running of the race, or the identity of
the horse, but some statistical data regarding the horses is
provided for bettors who wish to place their bets with some
degree of deliberation.

Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 8.W.34.726, 730
(Ky. 2014). The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the
same time, as opposed to traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets
on one race at a time. State ex rel. Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500.

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the
time of the Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could

initiate action under § 3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018
Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich.

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued-by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player
terminals has been prohibited in Arizona since before
May 1, 2002. Any change to Arizona’s pre-May 1,
2002 gaming laws could cause one of the signatories
to the Arizona Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the
“Compact”) to initiate action under Compact section
3(h)G), which would limit the State’s ability to
regulate some aspects of tribal gaming and
dramatically decrease the revenues the tribes must
provide to the State. Accordingly, Arizona’s Indian
Gaming Compact could be in jeopardy if the State
permits historic pari-mutuel wagering.”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law v. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i.c., off-
reservation sports betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators.

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands. The
bets or wagers at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place
off-reservation, i.e., not on Indian lands.

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by
tribes or tribal operators (i.e., third parties) under state law. Importantly, the bill
includes a tax provision, which imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of
sales related to the sports betting. IGRA would prohibit the imposition of such a tax if
this gaming is considered Indian gaming. If the sports betting is operated under State
law, then the tax may be permissible because the operator (a third party) would be
offering the sports betting under State law.

The ambiguity in HB 2813 is unacceptable and will result in a potential State
violation of federal law as well as triggering the “poison pill” provisions of the existing
tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compact; Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates
that a tribal-state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state and a
tribe. That is what happened as a result of Proposition 202. A unilateral amendment to
the tribal-state compact would be inconsistent with the requirements of a mutually
negotiated tribal-state compact under IGRA. Likewise, it is doubtful that the Secretary
of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve such an amendment as required by

IGRA.
This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state
compact. This bill would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of
the exclusivity provisions. The Compact provides at Section 3(h):

If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is
interpreted in a final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction or in a final order of a State administrative
agency to permit either a Person or entity other than an
Indian tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any form of Class IIT
Gaming (including Video Lottery Terminals) that is not
authorized under this Compact, other than gambling that is
lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or
poker, other than poker that is lawful on May 1, 2002
pursuant to A.R.S, § 13-3302... then, upon the effective
date of such State law, final judgment, or final order: (A)
[t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to
operate Class JIT Gaming Devices without limitations ... and
without the need to amend this Compact (B) [t]he Tribe shall
be authorized under this Compact to operate table games,
without limitations ... and without the need to amend this
Compact... and (C)... the Tribe’s obligation under Section
12 to make contributions to the State shall be immediately
reduced....

Compact § 3(h)(1)(A)-(C) (2009), available at
https://gaming.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/compact.final_.pdf

(emphasis added).

The Compact further provides:

The provisions of this Section 3(h) shall not apply to casino

nights operated by non-profit or charitable organizations
pursuant to and qualified under A.R.S. § 13-3302(B); to
social gambling as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any
paper product lottery games, including ticket dispensing
devices of the nature used prior to May 1, 2002, by the
Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked recreational
pools or similar activities operated by and on the premises of
retailers licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as
may be authorized by State law.

Id. at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill”
because the State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not
authorized on May 1, 2002 and both forms of gaming would be considered Class III

gaming under IGRA, Hence, the State would lose approximately $08 milli j
contributions to the Arizona Benefits Fund, PP y $9 on per year In

Voter Protection Act

This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove
the exclusivity provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for
payments.

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts
allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land.
In return, tribes would contribute 1% to 8% of "gross gaming revenue" (defined as the
difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the
state to fund programs for problem gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary
increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement, trauma and emergency
services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs benefiting the
general public, These distributions are outside the regular legislative process,

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming
compact with each Indian tribe that requests it.

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a
gaming compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202.

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify
voter initiatives and referenda such as Proposition 202. When the Legislature deviates
from a voter-approved law, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify
the Legislature's otherwise plenary authority. A.R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, C),
(14). Nor may it amend or supersede a voter-approved law unless the proposed
legislation “furthers the purposes” of the initiative or referendum measure and is
approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives and Senate. Ariz.

Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)(C), (44).

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition
202 or that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal
interests and rights under existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion

The Legislature should reject HB 2813. Arizona legalization and regulation of
sports betting and historic racing would jeopardize the policies underlying the tribal-
state compact’s “mutually beneficial and well-regulated gaming system” as well as on-
going, comprehensive negotiations between the Governor and Arizona tribes. Passage
of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal contributions discussed above.

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed.
legislation regarding sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to
amend the existing tribal-state compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs to bea
win—win scenario for both the State and Tribes. The appropriate time and place for
those discussions are tribal-state compact negotiations, which are on-going. The
Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and limited gambling in the State.
The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed to ensure a
comprehensive discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that
could jeopardize the interests and expectations of the State and tribes.

Thank you for your consideration of the White Mountain Apache Tribe’s
comments.

Sincerely,

Blas A AKO

Gwendena Lee-Gatewood, Chairwoman

C: file
AIGA

Officiaily known as the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Indian Reservation
February 18, 2020

House Commerce Committee
Arizona State Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2813 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting; Historic Racing

Dear Commerce Committee Members:

The Zuni Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”) opposes HB 2813, which
proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to unilaterally change the existing tribal-
state compact’s exclusivity provisions. HB 2813 would legalize previously illegal sports betting and
historic racing gambling in the State of Arizona.

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt on-going tribal-state
compact negotiations; trigger the existing ‘poison pill” provisions of the tribal-state compact upon
enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature; and could impair the interests of gaming
tribes under the existing tribal-state compact in violation of the Arizona Constitution. HB 2813 does
not demonstrate considered public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and is inconsistent
with the voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in 2002.

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG) to adopt rules to allow historic
racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities. The bill would allow for
manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic racing,”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt rules
regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities, and casinos, and
licensing of tribal gaming operators. Further, the bill would impose a tax on operators and allocates
sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement Fund,”

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state compact exclusivity
provisions and strike the “poison pill” remedies, It would also remove the reference to exclusivity
being consideration for payments by the compact tribes, but would still require tribes to make tribal
contributions in accordance with the existing contributions,

Vat R. Panteah Sr. Arlen P, Quetawki Sr,
Governor PUEBLO OF ZUNI Councilman
P, O. Box 339

Carleton R, Bowekaty Zuni, New Mexico 87327 Erle Bobetu
Lt. Governor 1203-B NM State Hwy 53 Councilman

; Phone: (505) 782-7022
Virginia R, Chavez Fax: (505) 782-7202 Ricky R. Penketewa, Sr.
Head Counctlwoman www.ashiwi.ore Councilman
Clyde Yatsattie Arden Kucate
Councilman 505-782-7000 MAIN Counellman

House Commerce Committee
Page 2

Historic Racing

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do not encompass pari-mutuel historic racing, The term
“historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal (e.g., a slot machine) to place bets
on completed horse races in which the bettors do not know the outcome of the race. Wyoming Downs
Rodeo Events, LLC v, State, 134 P.3d 1223, 1229-30 (Wyo. 2006), Historic racing is also known as
“historical horse racing,” “Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC's registered trademark for its patented
system), “racing replay,” or “replayed races.” Jd, at 1224-25; Racetech, LLC vy, Kentucky Downs, LLC,
169 F, Supp. 3d 709, 711 (W.D. Ky. 2016); State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale, 853 N.W.2d 494, 499-500
(Neb. 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-32-605 (2018); see also Wyoming Downs, 134 P.3d at 1225
(historic racing also encompasses completed dog races).

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has described historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant Racing
terminal and then chooses a horse identified by a number. The terminal
then displays a video recording of the race for the better [sic] to watch,
or, as the name “Instant Racing” implies, the bettor may forego the
excitement of the actual race by opting to see immediately the results of
the race and the outcome of his wager. Bettors are not given information
from which they might identify the specific time and place of the actual
running of the race, or the identity of the horse, but some statistical data
regarding the horses is provided for bettors who wish to place their bets
with some degree of deliberation.

Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 726, 730 (Ky. 2014).
The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the same time, as opposed to
traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets on one race at a time. State ex rel,
Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500.

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the time of the
Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could initiate action under §
3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark
Brnovich.

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player terminals
has been prohibited in Arizona since before May 1, 2002, Any
change to Arizona’s pre-May 1, 2002 gaming laws could cause
one of the signatories to the Arizona Tribal-State Gaming
Compact (the “Compact’) to initiate action under Compact
section 3(h)(1), which would limit the State’s ability to regulate
some aspects of tribal gaming and dramatically decrease the
revenues the tribes must provide to the State, Accordingly,

House Commerce Committee
Page 3

Arizona’s Indian Gaming Compact could be in jeopardy if the
State permits historic pari-mutuel wagering.”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law y. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i.e., off-reservation sports
betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators.

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands. The bets or wagers
at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place off-reservation, i.e., not on
Indian lands.

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by tribes or tribal
operators (i.c., third parties) under state law. Importantly, the bill includes a tax provision, which
imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of sales related to the sports betting. IGRA would
prohibit the imposition of such a tax if this gaming is considered Indian gaming. If the sports betting is
operated under State law, then the tax may be permissible because the operator (a third party) would be
offering the sports betting under State law.

The ambiguity in HB 2813 is unacceptable and will result in a potential State violation of
federal law as well as triggering the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compacts Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates that a tribal-
state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state and a tribe. That is what happened as
a result of Proposition 202. A unilateral amendment to the tribal-state compact would be inconsistent
with the requirements of a mutually negotiated tribal-state compact under IGRA. Likewise, it is
doubtful that the Secretary of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve such an amendment as
required by IGRA.

This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state compact. This bill
would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of the exclusivity provisions, The
Compact provides at Section 3(h):

If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is interpreted in a final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or in a final order of a

State administrative agency to permit either a Person or entity other than

an Indian tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any form of Class Ill Gaming
(including Video Lottery Terminals) that_is not_authorized_under_this

Compact, other than gambling that is lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to
A.R.S. § 13-3302; or poker, other than poker that is lawful on May 1,
2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302 ... then, upon the effective date of
such State law, final judgment, or final order: (A) [t]he Tribe shall be
authorized under this Compact to operate Class III Gaming Devices
without limitations . . . and without the need to amend this Compact (B)
[t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to operate table

House Commerce Committee
Page 4

games, without limitations . . . and without the need to amend this
Compact... and (C)... the Tribe’s obligation under Section 12 to make
contributions to the State shall be immediately reduced...
Compact § 3(h)(1)(A)-(C) (2003), available at
https://gaming.az,gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/compact.final_.pdf (emphasis added).
The Compact further provides:
The provisions of this Section 3(h) shal! not apply to casino nights
operated by non-profit or charitable organizations pursuant to and
qualified under A.R.S. § 13-3302(B); to social gambling as defined in

A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any paper product lottery games, including ticket
dispensing devices of the nature used prior to May 1, 2002, by the

Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked recreational pools or
similar activities operated by and on the premises of retailers licensed
under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as may be authorized by State
law.

Id, at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill” because the
State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not authorized on May 1, 2002
and both forms of gaming would be considered Class II] gaming under IGRA, Hence, the State would
lose approximately $98 million per year in contributions to the Arizona Benefits Fund.

Voter Protection Act

This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove the exclusivity
provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for payments.

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts allowing Indian
tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land. In return, tribes would
contribute 1% to 8% of “gross gaming revenue" (defined as the difference between gaming wins and
losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the state to fund programs for problem gambling,
classroom size reduction, teacher salary increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement,
trauma and emergency services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs
benefiting the general public. These distributions are outside the regular legislative process,

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming compact with each
Indian tribe that requests it.

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a gaming
compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202.

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify voter initiatives
and referenda such as Proposition 202. When the Legislature deviates from a voter-approved law, the
constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify the Legislature's otherwise plenary authority.
A.R.S. Const, Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, C), (14). Nor may it amend or supersede a voter-approved law
unless the proposed legislation “furthers the purposes” of the initiative or referendum measure and is
approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives and Senate. Ariz, Const. art. 4, pt. 1,

§ 1(6)(C), (14).

House Commerce Committee
Page 5

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition 202 or that it
furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal interests and rights under
existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion

The Legislature should reject HB 2813. Arizona legalization and regulation of sports betting
and historic racing would jeopardize the policies underlying the tribal-state compact’s “mutually
beneficial and well-regulated gaming system” as well as on-going, comprehensive negotiations
between the Governor and Arizona tribes, Passage of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal
contributions discussed above.

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed legislation regarding
sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to amend the existing tribal-state
compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs to be a win-win scenario for both the State and Tribes.
The appropriate time and place for those discussions are tribal-state compact negotiations, which are
on-going. The Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and limited gambling in the State.
The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed to ensure a comprehensive
discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that could jeopardize the interests
and expectations of the State and tribes,

Thank you for your consideration of the Zuni Tribe’s comments.

a
Val R. Panteah, Sr,
Governor
Zuni Tribe

QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE

Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation
Office of Tribal Administration
P.O, Box 1899
Yuma, Arizona 85366-1899
Phone (760) 572-0213
Fax (760) 572-2102

February 18, 2020

House Commerce Committee
Arizona State Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: HB 2813 (Rep. Pierce; Senator Borrelli); Sports Betting;
Historic Racing

Dear Commerce Committee Members:

The Ft. Yuma Quechan Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”),
opposes HB 2813, which proposes to legalize sports betting and historic racing, and to
unilaterally change the existing tribal-state compact’s exclusivity provisions. HB 2813
would legalize previously illegal sports betting and historic racing gambling in the State
of Arizona.

In short, this bill would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; disrupt on-
going tribal-state compact negotiations; trigger the existing “poison pill” provisions of
the tribal-state compact upon enactment; require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature;
and could impair the interests of gaming tribes under the existing tribal-state compact
in violation of the Arizona Constitution. HB 2813 does not demonstrate considered
public policy regarding gaming in the State of Arizona and is inconsistent with the
voters’ will expressed through the passage of Proposition 202 in 2002.

General Overview

This bill requires the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADOG) to adopt rules to
allow historic racing to be conducted at racetracks and additional wagering facilities,
The bill would allow for manual and electronic forms of wagering and defines “historic
racing.”

The bill would also authorize sports betting in the state and direct ADOG to adopt
rules regarding the conduct of sports betting at racetracks, additional wagering facilities,
and casinos, and licensing of tribal gaming operators. Further, the bill would impose a
tax on operators and allocates sports betting revenues to a “Racing Purse Enhancement
Fund.”

The bill would also unilaterally attempt to modify the existing tribal-state
compact exclusivity provisions and sirike the “poison pill” remedies. It would also

£7

Attachment_*~ "
remove the reference to exclusivity being consideration for payments by the compact
tribes, but would still require tribes to make tribal contributions in accordance with the
existing contributions,

Historic Racing

Arizona’s current horse racing rules do not encompass pari-imutuel historic
racing. The term “historic racing” refers to the use of an electronic device or terminal
(e.g., aslot machine) to place bets on completed horse races in which the bettors do not
know the outcome of the race. Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC v, State, 134 P.3d
1223, 1229-30 (Wyo, 2006). Historic racing is also known as “historical horse racing,”
“Instant Racing” (RaceTech, LLC’s registered trademark for its patented system),
“racing replay,” or “replayed races.” Id. at 1224-25; Racetech, LLC v. Kentucky Downs,
LLC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 709, 711 (W.D. Ky. 2016); State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale, 853
N.W.2d 494, 499-500 (Neb. 2014); Col. Rev, Stat. Ann. § 44-32-605 (2018); see also
Wyoming Downs, 134 P.3d at 1225 (historic racing also encompasses completed dog
races).

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has described historic racing as follows:

The bettor inserts money or its equivalent into the Instant
Racing terminal and then chooses a horse identified by a
number. The terminal then displays a video recording of the
race for the better [sic] to watch, or, as the name “Instant
Racing” implies, the bettor may forego the excitement of the
actual race by opting to see immediately the results of the
race and the outcome of his wager. Bettors are not given
information from which they might identify the specific time
and place of the actual running of the race, or the identity of
the horse, but some statistical data regarding the horses is
provided for bettors who wish to place their bets with some
degree of deliberation.

Appalachian Racing, LLC v, Family Tr. Found. of Kentucky, Inc., 423 8.W.3d 726, 730
(Ky. 2014). The terminals also allow a player to make wagers on several races at the
same time, as opposed to traditional horse wagering, which generally only allows bets
on one race at a time, State ex rel. Loontjer, 853 N.W.2d at 500.

Impact on Tribal-State Compact

“In conclusion, because pari-mutuel historic race wagering was not legal at the
time of the Compact, if Arizona allowed it, the tribal signatories to the Compact could
initiate action under § 3(h)(1) to abrogate portions of the Compact.” August 2018
Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich.

According to an August 2018 Attorney General Opinion issued by Mark Brnovich:

“Wagering on historic racing through the use of player
terminals has been prohibited in Arizona since before
May 1, 2002. Any change to Arizona’s pre-May 1,
2002 gaming laws could cause one of the signatories
to the Arizona Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the
“Compact”) to initiate action under Compact section
3(h)(), which would limit the State’s ability to
regulate some aspects of tribal gaming and
dramatically decrease the revenues the tribes must
provide to the State. Accordingly, Arizona’s Indian
Gaming Compact could be in jeopardy if the State
permits historic pari-mutuel wagering.”

Sports Betting; Tax on Indian Tribe; State Law v. Federal Law Gaming

This proposal is very similar to earlier proposals by Senator Borrelli, i.e., off-
reservation sports betting being offered by Indian tribes or tribal gaming operators.

IGRA provides that Indian gaming can only be conducted on Indian lands. 'The
bets or wagers at kiosks or by other methods by the language of the bill could take place
off-reservation, i.e., not on Indian lands.

Hence, the question is whether this gaming is really going to be conducted by
tribes or tribal operators (i.e., third parties) under state law. Importantly, the bill
includes a tax provision, which imposes a tax on the gross income or gross proceeds of
sales related to the sports betting. IGRA would prohibit the imposition of such a tax if
this gaming is considered Indian gaming. If the sports betting is operated under State
law, then the tax may be permissible because the operator (a third party) would be
offering the sports betting under State law.

The ambiguity in HB 2813 is unacceptable and will result in a potential State
violation of federal Jaw as well as triggering the “poison pill” provisions of the existing
tribal-state compact.

IGRA; Unilateral Amendment of Compact; Exclusivity

HB 2813 would contravene the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. IGRA anticipates
that a tribal-state compact will be negotiated and entered mutually by a state anda
tribe. That is what happened as a result of Proposition 202. A unilateral amendment to
the tribal-state compact would be inconsistent with the requirements of a mutually
negotiated tribal-state compact under IGRA. Likewise, it is doubtful that the Secretary
of the Interior (or his delegate) would approve such an amendment as required by
IGRA.

This bill would trigger the “poison pill” provisions of the existing tribal-state
compact. This bill would both authorize new gaming and gaming devices in violation of
the exclusivity provisions. The Compact provides at Section 3(h):

If, on or after May 1, 2002, State Jaw changes or is
interpreted in a final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction or in a final order of a State administrative
agency to permit either a Person or entity other than an
Indian tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any form of Class III
Gaming (including Video Lottery Terminals) that is not
authorized under this Compact, other than gambling that is
lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or
poker, other than poker that is lawful on May 1, 2002
pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302... then, upon the effective
date of such State law, final judgment, or final order: (A)
[t]he Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to
operate Class II] Gaming Devices without limitations... and
without the need to amend this Compact (B) [tyJhe Tribe shall
be authorized under this Compact to operate table games,
without limitations . .. and without the need to amend this
Compact... and (C)... the Tribe’s obligation under Section
12 to make contributions to the State shall be immediately
reduced...

Compact § 3(h)(4)(A)-(C) (2003), available at
https://gaming.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/compact.final_.pdf
(emphasis added).

‘The Compact further provides:

The provisions of this Section 3() shall not apply to casino
nights operated by non-profit or charitable organizations
pursuant to and qualified under A.R.S, § 13-3302(B); to
social gambling as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any
paper product lottery games, including ticket dispensing
devices of the nature used prior to May 1, 2002, by the
Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked recreational
pools or similar activities operated by and on the premises of
retailers licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as
may be authorized by State law.

Id. at § 3(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Authorizing new sports betting and historic racing would trigger the “poison pill”
because the State would authorize a person or entity to offer new gaming that was not
authorized on May 1, 2002 and both forms of gaming would be considered Class III
gaming under IGRA. Hence, the State would lose approximately $98 million per year in
contributions to the Arizona Benefits Fund.

Voter Protection Act

This bill would unilaterally amend the existing tribal-state compacts to remove
the exclusivity provision and acknowledgment that exclusivity is consideration for
payments,

Proposition 202 directed the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts
allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land.
In return, tribes would contribute 1% to 8% of "gross gaming revenue" (defined as the
difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the
state to fund programs for problem gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary
increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement, trauma and emergency
services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs benefiting the
general public. These distributions are outside the regular legislative process.

Proposition 202 expressly directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming
compact with each Indian tribe that requests it,

Proposition 202 also expressly provides the Governor with authority to amend a
gaming compact consistent with the terms of Proposition 202.

The Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) limited the Legislature's authority to modify
voter initiatives and referenda such as Proposition 202, When the Legislature deviates
from a voter-approved law, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and qualify
the Legislature's otherwise plenary authority. A.R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 1, § 1(6)(B, ©),
(14). Nor may it amend or supersede a voter-approved law unless the proposed
legislation “furthers the purposes” of the initiative or referendum measure and is
approved by a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives and Senate. Ariz.
Const. art, 4, pt. 1, § 1(6)(C), (44).

It is doubtful that HB 2813 is consistent with the express terms of Proposition
202 or that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 202. In fact, it would impair tribal
interests and rights under existing law and the tribal-state compact.

Conclusion

The Legislature should reject HB 2813. Arizona legalization and regulation of
sports betting and historic racing would jeopardize the policies underlying the tribal-
state compact’s “mutually beneficial and well-regulated gaming system” as well as on-
going, comprehensive negotiations between the Governor and Arizona tribes. Passage
of HB 2813 would result in the State losing tribal contributions discussed above.

Tribes in Arizona have a vested interest in the outcome of any proposed
legislation regarding sports betting and historic racing as well as Legislative proposals to
amend the existing tribal-state compact. Gaming legislation in Arizona needs tobea
win-win scenario for both the State and Tribes. The appropriate time and place for
those discussions are tribal-state compact negotiations, which are on-going, The
Governor has stated his intent to have safe, regulated, and limited gambling in the State.
The tribal-state compact negotiation should be allowed to proceed to ensure a

comprehensive discussion of gaming in the State rather than piecemeal legislation that
could jeopardize the interests and expectations of the State and tribes.

Thank you for your consideration of the FT. Yuma Quechan Tribe’s comments.

Sincerely,
Ft. Yuma Quechan Tribe

Aan (os guln
Joan Joaqtin, President

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2446: simulcast dog racing; wagering; time
Sponsor: Representative Pierce, LD 1
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Amends the time in which simulcast dog racing is permitted.

History
Simulcast is defined as the telecast shown within this state of live audio and visual signals of

horse, harness or dog races conducted at an out-of-state track or the telecast shown outside this
state of live audio and visual signals of horse or harness races originating within this state for the
purpose of pari-mutuel wagering (A.R.S. § 5-101).

The Department of Gaming may grant the racetrack permittee permission to receive electronically
televised simulcasts of horse, harness or dog races. Additionally, allow the permittee to transmit
the live horse or harness race from the racetrack to a facility in another state (A.R.S. § 5-112).

Live racing and wagering on simulcast races are permitted at anytime except, on the days that
there is live daytime horse or harness racing in any county wagering on simulcast dog racing is
only permitted after 4:15 p.m. mountain standard time (A.R.S. § 5-110).

Provisions
1, Changes the time that wagering on simulcast dog racing may begin on the same day that
there is live daytime horse or harness racing from 4:15 p.m. to 4:15 a.m. (Sec. 1)

CL] Prop 105 (45 votes) F Prop 108 (40 votes) © Emergency (40 votes) 1 Fiscal Note

HB 2446

Dannna anne

Initials PRB Page 1
Attachment AO

Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regutar Session H.B. 2446

PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2446
(Reference to printed bill)

1 Page 1, line 36, after “before” insert ":

2 i."

3 Line 39, after the period insert:

4 "2. 4:15 P.M., MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME, ON DAYS DURING. WHICH LIVE
5 HORSE RACES OF THE BREEDERS CUP, KENTUCKY DERBY, PREAKNESS STAKES AND
6 BELMONT STAKES ARE TAKING PLACE,

7 . dD."

8 Reletter to conform

9 Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER

2446WENINGERL
02/17/2020
10:40 AM

H: PRB/1s

Attachment A 7

4 tof

= Adopted ie
Failed ___——- Wilhdr

Not Offered Analysts in! Me
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. __HB 2446

DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: D i

PASS NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci

Butler

Chavez

Epstein

Kern

Meza

Roberts

Grantham, Vice-Chairman

Weninger, Chairman

0 O 2

SINAN SIN NS

COMMITTEE SECRETARY

APPROVED;
JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT 30
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2635: mobile home parks; caregivers
Sponsor: Representative Biackman, LD 6
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Amends the qualifications to act as a caregiver for a mobile home resident.

History
The Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act simplifies, clarifies and establishes

laws governing the rental of mobile home spaces, rights and obligation of the landlord and tenant.
(Title 33, Chapter 11)

Current law allows a person who is at least 18 to act as a caregiver and provide necessary live-
in health care to a mobile home resident as instructed by a written treatment plan prepared by the
resident's physician. (A.R.S. § 33-1413.03)

Federal law defines live-in aide as a person who resides with one or more elderly persons, or
near-elderly persons, or persons with disabilities, and who:
1) is determined to be essential to the care and well-being of the persons;
2) is not obligated for the support of the persons; and
3) Would not be living in the unit except to provide the necessary supportive services. (24
CRF Subtitle A § 5.403)

Provisions
1. Requires a person to qualify as a live-in aide as prescribed by federal law in order to reside in
and provide necessary live-in health care to a mobile home resident. (Sec. 1)

2. Removes language permitting a person to provide necessary live-in health care to the mobile
home resident pursuant to a physician's written treatment plan. (Sec. 1)

3. Removes language requiring a resident to provide a physician's written treatment plan to the
landlord every six months. (Sec. 1)

Initials PRB Commerce

Attachment 5 /
Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regular Session H.B. 2635

PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2635
(Reference to printed bill)

1 Page 1, strike line 5, insert "PURSUANT TO ARIZONA AND FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS,
2 A RESIDENT WHO HAS A DISABILITY, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 41-1491, MAY HAVE A
3 PERSON OR PERSONS OCCUPY" |

4 Line 6, strike “on a temporary basis"

5 Line 7, after "care" insert ", PERSONAL CARE OR SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, IF SUCH
6 SERVICES ARE NECESSARY TO AFFORD THE DISABLED RESIDENT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO
7 USE AND ENJOY THE DWELLING,"

8 Line 13, strike the first “care” insert “LIVE-IN HEALTH CARE, PERSONAL CARE OR
9 SUPPORTIVE SERVICES"; strike the second "“care" insert "HEALTH CARE,
10 PERSONAL CARE OR SUPPORTIVE SERVICES"
11 Lines 14 and 16, strike "care" insert “HEALTH CARE, PERSONAL CARE OR
12 SUPPORTIVE SERVICES"

13 Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER

2635WENINGER
02/17/2020
11:44 AM

H: PRB/1s

Attachment 7) A

Adopted L it of Ve
Failed Withdraw

Not Offered___ Analysts Initials 7's
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. HB 2635
DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: D A 17

PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT
Biasiucci J
Butler WA
Chavez /
Epstein V4
Kern J
Meza WA
Roberts VA
Grantham, Vice-Chairman A
Weninger, Chairman WA

| O 0 yw,
, &y

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT 2 7
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-fourth Legislature
Second Regular Session

HB 2841: municipal zoning; housing overlay
Sponsor: Representative Kern, LD 20
Committee on Commerce

Overview
Requires a municipality to adopt by ordinance a Housing Affordability Zoning Overlay District.

History
Municipalities have the authority to regulate the use of buildings, structures and land within its

jurisdiction by ordinance to conserve and promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
All municipal zoning regulations must be uniform to each class or kind of building, but the
regulations in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones (A.R.S. § 9-462.01).

Provisions
Housing Affordability Zoning Overlay District (District) (Sec. 1)
1. Declares housing affordability is a matter of statewide concern.

2. Specifies the regulation of housing within the designated District is not subject to further
regulation by a city, town or political subdivision of this state, including a charter city.

3. Requires a municipality to adopt by ordinance, prior to July 1, 2021, a District over at least
30% of all vacant land that is zoned for single-family residential use.

4. Specifies the District may allow a subdivider to construct a qualifying development of not more
than 15 dwelling units per acre for sale.

5. Instructs the municipality to update the ordinance with each successive general plan to ensure
compliance.

6. Prohibits a municipality from:
a) Denying a building permit or approval that is required as a condition of development or
construction for failure to comply with; and
b) Enforcing any code, ordinance, standard, or any other legai requirement relating to or
regulating dwelling design elements or the location and size of open space, with exception.

7. Allows a municipality:
a) To limit landscaping material to approved drought-tolerant trees and plants; and
b) Require applicable state and federal law regarding sidewalk placement and design.

8. Exempts a code, ordinance, standard or other legal requirement that meets specified criteria
from certain District requirements.

9. Requires a municipality to grant or deny a building permit or approval that is required as a
condition of development or construction within 90 days after a subdivider submits a
completed application.

a) Allows a subdivider to proceed with the development or construction without a permit or
approval if the municipality does not grant or deny the application.

C] Prop 105 (45 votes) 1 Prop 108 (40 votes) © Emergency (40 votes) JO Fiscal Note

. HB 2841
Initials PRB Page L Cammarra

Attachment BY

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Allows the municipality to adopt a reasonable reporting requirement to determine if the

subdivider that is selling newly constructed dwellings within the qualifying development

continues to meet the certification requirement.

a) Stipulates the municipality may request the Real Estate Department revoke the
subdivider's public report if it is determined that the subdivider is not in compliance.

b) Stipulates if the subdivider fails to demonstrate to the Department, within 60 days of
receiving the request, that the subdivider is in compliance, the Department must revoke
the public report.

Allows any action of enforcement to be brought before the superior court.

Specifies the requirements and limitations placed on a municipality must be broadly construed
to ensure that the municipality is not enacting regulations that discourage the development of
qualifying developments through unreasonable cost or delay.

Requires any District ordinance be adopted following the procedure prescribed in the citizen
review process relating to public hearings.

Specifies the requirements for a District does not:

a) Prohibit a municipality from allowing the development and construction of dwelling units in
accordance with the underlying zoning district or approving a rezoning request under a
zoning ordinance; or

b) Affect the validity or enforceability of private covenants or other contractual agreements
among property owners relating to dwelling design elements.

Defines dwelling, dwelling design elements, housing organization, minimum standard building
code, objective, qualifying development and subdivider.

Makes a conforming change. (Sec. 2)

HB 2841

Initials PRB Page 2 Commerce

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Fifty-fourth Legislature Commerce
Second Regular Session H.B. 2841

PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2841
(Reference to printed bill)

Page 1, line 36, strike “OR”

Strike lines 37 and 38, insert “THAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 9-807 AND 9-808
INCLUDING ANY ADOPTED LOCAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO A DWELLING
DESIGN ELEMENT”

Page 2, line 2, after “CONSTRUCTION” insert “OF A QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT”

Line 3, strike "NINETY" insert "ONE HUNDRED TWENTY”

Line 5, after “CONSTRUCTION” insert “OF A QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT”; strike
“NINETY” insert “ONE HUNDRED TWENTY”

Line 7, after “CONSTRUCTION” insert “OF A QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT”

Line 8, after the period insert “A MUNICIPALITY MAY WITHHOLD A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY OR FINAL APPROVAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OBJECTIVE HEALTH
OR SAFETY REQUIREMENT.”

Between lines 43 and 44 insert:

“3. CREATE ANY NEW STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT OR THE DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL
DWELLINGS.”
Page 3, line 33, strike “ELECTRIC” insert “ELECTRICAL”

Amend title to conform

JEFF WENINGER
2841WENINGER
02/17/2020
08:15 AM
H: PRB/1s

Attachment _34~

Adopted _ YA #t of

Failed Withdraw

Not Offered Analysts Init Sod.
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMITTEE ON Commerce BILL NO. HB 2841

DATE February 18, 2020 MOTION: » ? ft

PASS AYE NAY PRESENT | ABSENT

Biasiucci VA .
Butler x ‘
Chavez VA
Epstein VA
Kern vA
Meza v
Roberts V4
Grantham, Vice-Chairman VA
Weninger, Chairman VA

5 | 2 O a

APPROVED: COMMITTEE SECRETARY

JEFF WENINGER, Chairman
TRAVIS W. GRANTHAM, Vice-Chairman

ATTACHMENT. I

File and source

File

2020-02-18_commerce-minutes.pdf

Size

5,922,789 bytes

SHA-256

0c0df976c0b0dc3cd582b5df77cc340c713ef33b66cee69dfaaf3c8c2443b27b

Our copy

2020-02-18_commerce-minutes.pdf

Original

www.azleg.gov