Arizona 2024 Regular Session

Arizona House Bill HB2125

Introduced
1/10/24  
Report Pass
1/31/24  
Introduced
1/10/24  
Report Pass
2/5/24  
Report Pass
1/31/24  
Engrossed
2/23/24  
Report Pass
2/5/24  
Report Pass
3/13/24  
Engrossed
2/23/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Report Pass
3/13/24  
Enrolled
4/3/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Vetoed
4/9/24  
Enrolled
4/3/24  

Caption

Annexation; notice; approval

Impact

The implications of HB 2125 on state laws are significant. By clarifying the steps and requirements for successful annexation, the bill aims to diminish ambiguities that may lead to legal disputes. It provides greater protection for property owners by allowing them to challenge annexations and ensuring they receive detailed notifications about the proceedings. Additionally, the bill creates a clearer path for cities and towns to expand their boundaries in a manner that complies with legislative standards, potentially promoting growth and development in urban areas.

Summary

House Bill 2125 focuses on the procedural requirements for annexation by cities and towns in Arizona. The bill amends Section 9-471 of the Arizona Revised Statutes to outline a detailed process for extending the corporate limits of a city or town. This includes stipulations regarding the filing of petitions, waiting periods, public hearings, and notifications to property owners and the county recorder. The intent behind the bill is to streamline the annexation process while also ensuring that property owners are adequately informed and involved in the process.

Sentiment

Sentiment surrounding HB 2125 appears to be mixed. On one hand, proponents argue that clear guidelines for annexation are necessary to encourage development and reduce conflicts between municipalities and property owners. They believe that the bill enhances local governance by providing a structured approach to managing expansions. On the other hand, critics are concerned that the bill might favor local governments at the expense of individual property rights, fearing it may lead to overreach in areas where annexation might displace or disrupt existing communities.

Contention

Notable points of contention involve the balance between local government authority and property owner rights. Some opponents of the bill believe that while it provides necessary procedural clarity, it could also diminish the influence of residents in areas subject to annexation. Discussions have highlighted the importance of safeguarding neighborhood interests and ensuring that all parties impacted by annexation have a voice in the process, particularly in public hearings.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

AZ SB1594

State lands; annexation; delegation; minerals

AZ SB1268

Annexation; notice; approval

CA AB825

San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District.

CA AB1581

Local government: omnibus.

AZ HB2865

Natural resource conservation districts; board

AZ HB2381

Non-contiguous county island fire districts

CA SB189

Fort Ord Reuse Authority: member agencies: land use and zoning: dissolution.

CA AB399

Water Ratepayers Protections Act of 2023: County Water Authority Act: exclusion of territory: procedure.