Governor's declaration; fiscal impact analysis
The impact of HB 2587 on state laws is significant as it establishes a structured approach to assess the economic viability of convention centers and related projects. Specifically, the bill entails a comprehensive analysis of direct and indirect economic activities linked to completed projects, potentially influencing funding allocations from the state general fund. Furthermore, it retroactively applies its provisions from December 31, 2019, ensuring that affected projects are included in this new framework, which could inform future funding and investment decisions across the state.
House Bill 2587 amends section 9-626 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, focusing primarily on the development and fiscal management of convention centers. The bill mandates that eligible cities report progress on their development projects to the Joint Committee on Capital Review twice annually during the construction phase. Moreover, it requires the Auditor General to conduct an economic and fiscal impact analysis within five years after a project’s completion, detailing its effects on state revenues and attendance at related events. The bill aims to streamline the reporting process and ensure that cities are accountable for the financial outcomes of their projects.
The sentiment around HB 2587 has generally been supportive among proponents who believe that the bill will provide much-needed oversight and accountability for convention center projects. They argue that the comprehensive economic analysis will benefit both the state and local governments by ensuring that projects yield the anticipated financial returns. However, there may be concern among some stakeholders about the bureaucratic implications and the potential for increased state control over local convention center projects.
Notable points of contention include the requirements imposed on eligible cities regarding progress reporting and the potential fiscal implications of the Auditor General's analyses. Critics might argue that such requirements could place additional administrative burdens on local governments, particularly smaller cities that may not have the necessary resources to comply fully. Additionally, the retroactive application of the bill allows for scrutiny over past projects, potentially leading to disagreements over previously established expectations and outcomes.