---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------

ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Forty-fourth Legislature – Second Regular Session

COMMITTEE ON PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION REVIEW

Minutes of Meeting

Thursday, March 9, 2000

House Hearing Room 4 – 1:30 p.m.

(Tape 1, Side A)

Chairman Voss called the meeting to order at 1:43 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.

Members Present

Mr. Burns	Mr. Nichols	Mr. Carpenter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Miranda	Mr. Wong	Miss Voss, Chairman

Members Absent

None

Committee Action

S.B. 1220 – DPA S/E (5-1-0-0)

Speakers Present

Melodie Jones, Majority Research Analyst

Peter Hayes, Spokesman, Governor’s Plan B Task Force Committee

Steve Betts, representing the Arizona Cardinals

James Grogan, Member, Governor’s Plan B Task Force Committee

Charles Huggins, Secretary/Treasurer, Arizona State AFL/CIO

Debbie Sweeney, Executive Director, Valley Hotel & Resort Association

Mark McDermott, Director, Arizona Office of Tourism

Jerry Geiger, President, Cactus League Association

Names of people recognized by Chairman Voss who appeared in support of S.B. 1220 but did not speak (pages 7 and 12)

Bob Fannin, representing Enterprise Leasing

Timothy Wagner, representing himself, Peoria

John Junker, President, Fiesta Bowl

Bill Lautenbach, representing himself, Phoenix

Tom Tracy, Chairman of the Board, Southern Arizona Innkeepers Association

Name of person recognized by Chairman Voss who appeared in support of the Nichols amendment to Senate Bill 1220 but did not speak (page 9)

CONSIDERATION OF BILL:

S.B. 1220, defined contribution plan; employee contributions

S/E: tourism and sports authority – DO PASS AMENDED S/E

Melodie Jones, Majority Research Analyst, explained that the Voss 48-page strike-everything amendment to S.B. 1220 dated 3/7/00 (Attachment 1) establishes a Tourism and Sports Authority (TSA) for the purpose of constructing, financing, maintaining, operating and promoting a multipurpose facility, major league baseball spring training facilities; community youth and amateur sports facilities, recreational facilities and other community facilities or programs (Attachment 2). If approved by the qualified electors residing in the Authority, the Authority may receive revenues from the following tax sources: a car rental surcharge of 3.25 percent or $2.50 on each lease or rental, and a transient lodging tax of 1.0 percent. The bill provides a conditional repeal if the voters reject the levy of a surcharge on car rentals and a tax on hotels, with any unencumbered TSA funds reverting to the State General Fund.

Vice Chair Carpenter questioned whether there will be a committee to oversee the naming, design and artwork of the facility to ensure that they are not offensive to any ethnic or minority group. Ms. Jones replied that the Executive Director of the TSA will enter into contracts with the architect and people constructing the facility. Before anything goes forward, it must have the approval of the TSA Board. Vice Chair Carpenter said he wants to insure that specific language is included in the bill.

Mr. Nichols asked whether there will be some tax levied on income of the professional athletes. Ms. Jones clarified that the bill requires the Department of Revenue (DOR) to identify the personal income tax paid by professional football players. That money will be directed into the revenue clearing account of the Authority. The bill also directs the Department to adopt and enforce rules to tax professional athletes who come into Arizona. Currently, the State has rules on nonresident income taxes that are charged when entertainers come in for the night; however, there has been debate on how well they are enforced. This will strengthen those rules and make sure they are being enforced.

In response to Mr. Nichols, Ms. Jones advised that three members of the Board are appointed by the Governor, one member is appointed by the President of the Senate and one member is appointed by the Speaker of the House. The bill is silent on the appointees’ political makeup.

Mr. Nichols asked how this relates to the Fiesta Bowl. Ms. Jones related that the sales of admissions to intercollegiate football contest, if held at the multipurpose facility, would be taxable.

Mr. Nichols questioned whether the taxes directed to the Authority would be limited to taxes paid by the players or whether it includes taxes paid by all employees of the franchise. Ms. Jones replied that it applies to all employees of the organization.

Mr. Nichols asked whether there is anything in the bill that benefits the rest of the State, or does this proposal apply only to Maricopa County. Ms. Jones advised that the Authority is set up in a county that has a population of more than two million persons. Currently, that would only affect Maricopa County.

Mr. Nichols asked about the statewide tourism impact. Ms. Jones referred to the Governor’s Plan B Proposal (Attachment 3). She said that overall the Governor’s Office believes that increasing tourism dollars will have a dynamic statewide economic impact. The economic impact will increase in fiscal year 2002 to $20 million.

Mr. Nichols queried the reason for not expanding the Sun Devil Stadium as opposed to building a new facility. Ms. Jones said she believes it was determined that the cost of renovating the Sun Devil Stadium and building a new facility was the same.

Mr. Wong questioned who would own the stadium. Ms. Jones replied that it would be owned by the Authority.

Mr. Wong asked if any consideration was given to land that has been offered as gifted. Ms. Jones said she believes there are ongoing discussions on that issue. Mr. Wong queried whether the gifting can be private or public. Ms. Jones said the Authority is able to accept any gifts.

Mr. Wong questioned whether a plan has to be put together before it is taken to the voters. Ms. Jones advised that before this can be taken to the voters, a site must be chosen.

Mr. Wong asked about the projected cost of the facility. Ms. Jones advised that the proponents of this proposal have more up-to-date information on cost.

Mr. Wong queried whether there is reference in the bill to capital contributions which organizations would contribute towards the cost of this facility. Ms. Jones related that the bill requires a 50/50 match on the major league training facilities and the community facilities. The bill requires $75 million toward the construction cost for the multi-purpose facility. Before the proposal goes to the voters, the Authority has to enter into a binding agreement with a regular user of the multi-purpose facility. Such an agreement with a professional franchise shall require the franchise to pay $75 million toward the construction and development cost of the facility.

Mr. Miranda asked whether there are any provisions in the bill for minority business enterprises or women business enterprises to have an edge in securing contracts for construction or vending. Ms. Jones replied there is nothing in the bill relating to small businesses or minority businesses to have a competitive edge in contracting.

Peter Hayes, Spokesman, Governor’s Plan B Task Force Committee, spoke in support of

H.B. 1220. He advised that the Task Force concluded it is important to the State if Arizona loses its National Football League (NFL) franchise in terms of economic impact numbers. He said it became clear to the Task Force that if Arizona wants to remain competitive in the NFL as well as the Fiesta Bowl, a stadium was needed. He said that Sun Devil Stadium was not considered an option because it was built in the 1950s and, since that time, stadiums have changed drastically. He advised that as a result of the economics of professional sports, franchises have moved. While the Cardinals team does not want to move, there is the possibility they may move as a result of economics. He said there have been a number of public-private partnerships that have been very successful in our community. He maintained that this legislation allows Arizona to remain competitive in the NFL and the college bowl series, as well as the cactus league.

Mr. Hayes provided a slide presentation on the Governor’s Retention and Enhancement Proposal (Attachment 4).

Mr. Miranda noted that there are five possible sites for the stadium. He advised he has had conversations with John F. Long who has offered land in the West Valley. He encouraged the Task Force to keep those conversations going. He maintained that it would be a great economic advantage to that area.

Mr. Miranda asked whether there is any language that guarantees contracts with minorities. Mr. Hayes answered that to his knowledge, there are no special provisions in the bill. Mr. Miranda asked whether there would be objection to including this language which is standard in State contracts. Mr. Hayes said he would have to consult with the Task Force. He said there was no discussion by the Task Force as to that particular issue.

Mr. Wong stated that he wants to insure that the Authority does not bypass other opportunities from public and private donors. Mr. Hayes said the Authority has the ability to chose various locations. Since money is tight, he said it would be advantageous to the Authority to accept land gifts.

Mr. Wong asked whether the economic impact studies reflect that new money will enter into the economy or will existing dollars be recirculated. He commented that if Arizona loses the franchise, existing money as well as new money will be lost.

Mr. Wong asked for as breakdown of the stadium cost. Mr. Hayes reiterated that 52 percent of the $341 million will come from private and facility revenues and 48 percent from new taxes. He said that of the 48 percent, 43 percent will come from visitors to Arizona and five percent will come from Arizona residents. Mr. Wong questioned what the five percent coming from Arizona residents figures out to be in dollars. Mr. Hayes replied that it is about $18 million.

Mr. Wong asked whether the $341 million includes just the facility or whether it includes land acquisition, parking structure, infrastructure, etc. Mr. Hayes advised that the $341 million has to do with the physical structure of the stadium and what is inside the stadium. It does not include other costs mentioned. Mr. Wong asked what the dollar amount is of other things that will make the stadium operational.

Steve Betts, representing the Arizona Cardinals, advised that the following are not included in the drip-line cost ($341 million):

· Land - In talking to four different communities, it was pointed out that there are some private landowners who are interested in giving land to make their proposals more attractive.

· Infrastructure - The sites the Task Force has been looking at need very little funding in the way of infrastructure.

· Parking – Three of the four sites under consideration have considerable parking facilities nearby.

Mr. Betts said the land, infrastructure and parking would in essence be the contribution of the local governments.

Mr. Wong commented that it is in the public interest to ask these questions. He asked what other costs the voters can expect beyond the $341 million. Mr. Betts replied there could be very little additional cost if the land is donated and if there is existing parking and infrastructure.

Tape 1, Side B

Mr. Betts revealed that additional costs for land could be as low as $0 to $25 million, or as high as $75 million. This will be discussed by the Authority before the vote in November. Local communities have indicated they will put that local share to the voters, so the voters will ultimately make the decision whether they want to put in that local contribution.

Mr. Wong declared that it is imperative to know there is the possibility of an additional cost of $75 million on top of the $341 million.

Mr. Nichols asked whether the Authority has taken into account other costs, such as roads, condemnation costs, land, site preparation, parking structures, etc. He wondered if those costs were included in the $75 million estimate. Mr. Betts replied in the negative.

Mr. Nichols referred to an article which appeared in the Arizona Republic which implied that ASU may not be interested in sharing Sun Devil stadium with the Cardinals. He asked whether the Task Force looked at building a shared stadium. Mr. Hayes replied that was an option; however, the goals, objectives and needs of the university and a professional franchise are vastly different. ASU made it very clear to the Task Force that the university was not interested in that option, and the Board of Regents indicated that it was not supportive of a joint facility with the Cardinals.

In response to Mr. Nichols’ question about the distribution of resources anticipated for the rest of the State, Mr. Hayes revealed that the entire State will benefit from this project even though it is a Maricopa County project and Maricopa County is paying for it. Mr. Betts advised that in the first year, $11 million goes to promote tourism statewide. $4 million, which will come from the new bed tax, will be used to promote the Valley of the Sun.

Mr. Nichols asked whether there was discussion by the Task Force for a regional tax to promote tourism in regions that wanted to participate. Mr. Betts said the original recommendation was to have a half-cent bed tax statewide and a one-cent tax in Maricopa County. He said opposition was voiced from different parts of the State for a regional tax. He said there was never discussion for a regional tax.

Mr. Carpenter questioned how long the Cardinals will be playing football in the stadium. Mr. Betts replied that an amendment will be offered that makes the team commitment coincide with the tax term, which is a 30-year commitment. He advised there is a 30-year funding program to pay off construction costs. Mr. Carpenter commented that the stadium may be worn out by the time it is paid for. Mr. Betts replied that it may not be worn out, but may be depreciated by that time. He said 30 years is the projected life of a facility nationwide.

Mr. Wong noted that there is a provision for a $325,000 appropriation from the General Fund to the Arizona Office of Tourism for distribution to the Authority. He asked what the Authority will do with this money. Mr. Betts said the Authority has to do different things before it can call for an election, such as pay for costs to negotiate a contract with the team, site analysis costs, etc.

James Grogan, Member, Governor’s Plan B Task Force Committee, testified in support of
S.B. 1220. He advised that the Task Force is made up of individuals from a cross-section of the community. The Task Force was charged with insuring that its recommendations would be for a program that minimized the tax upon Arizona residents, and that the recommended proposal would be superior to other proposals made in these types of transactions. He revealed that extensive research was conducted into refurbishing Sun Devil stadium, and it was found that the costs would be nearly identical to the costs of constructing a new facility. Refurbishing would take more than a year, and the question would be where the teams would play during that time.

In reply to Mr. Nichols’ question about the life span of the stadium, Mr. Grogan revealed that the Cardinals have agreed to commit to a long-term lease to coincide with the length of the funding for this proposal.

Charles Huggins, Secretary/Treasurer, Arizona State AFL/CIO, expressed support of S.B. 1220. He said the AFL/CIO provides good jobs in Arizona, and supports families and things that result in a good quality of life to workers, such as the symphony, auto racing, theaters, etc. A professional football team adds to the quality of life of Arizonans. He maintained that these quality-of-life issues are the economic engine that will drive good jobs not only in construction but in ancillary industries. He said many labor people support this bill. He asked Members to allow the people to decide this issue.

Mr. Nichols asked who the employees will be working for in the new facility. He wondered whether they will be working for private industry or whether they will be public employees. Mr. Huggins said he does not know. He advised there may be a problem with a provision in the bill that they not be public employees. He said discussion will be held with the proponents of the bill to see whether anything can be done to change the language. Mr. Betts advised there will be an Executive Director who will have a staff of public employees, but some of the work will be subcontracted out to private businesses.

Mr. Miranda again asked whether there are any objections to including minority businesses. Mr. Betts related that Title 34 has provisions for minority hiring.

Mr. Wong asked whether construction would include “fast tracking” which bypasses small businesses in the trades by bundling contracts. Mr. Betts said he would work on this issue with Mr. Huggins. Mr. Wong asked Mr. Betts to insure that bundling contracts be avoided that would bypass small business contractors.

Debbie Sweeney, Executive Director, Valley Hotel & Resort Association, testified in support of S.B. 1220. She said the Association worked with the Task Force and had involvement and input throughout this process. She stated that the additional tax levied on the industry will provide a significant increase in tourism throughout the Valley and the State. She said this bill will provide a strong boost to the lodging industry at a time when it is losing market share. She urged support of S.B. 1220.

Mark McDermott, Director, Arizona Office of Tourism, expressed support of S.B. 1220. He advised that the bed tax is about 13 percent nationwide which is used to fund tourism. Not only are the monies being used to fund stadiums but are being used to fund convention centers, gaming enterprises, etc. Arizona is in a competitive situation with these states and has lost its market share in the last two years. He revealed that there has been more spending in other states for product development and product enhancement, which has resulted in a total economic impact to Arizona of $1.5 billion in lost opportunity. He said the Office of Tourism views this proposal as the best competitive response mechanism from the standpoint of increased funding for tourism marketing. It will help the Office of Tourism mount the competitive response to protect Arizona’s businesses and the tourism industry in the State.

Jerry Geiger, President, Cactus League Association, spoke in support of S.B. 1220. He reported that the Cactus League has become very successful over the years. An in-depth survey on the economic impact on the Cactus League has shown that 60 percent of the fans come from out of state or out of area. When fans come from areas other than the two metropolitan areas, they usually stay overnight. He said he believes the Cactus League is a tourism generator. The Cactus League and the activity it generates has a statewide impact. With the passage of this legislation, Arizona would be competitive and there would be a positive impact on the statewide economy.

In response to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Geiger revealed that three of the ten Maricopa County cactus leagues are coming up for lease renewal within the next ten years. Part of the funding in this legislation will help address the retention of those teams that do not have long-term contracts.

Chairman Voss announced that the meeting is recessed to the sound of the gavel. THE MEETING RECESSED AT 3:40 P.M.

Tape 2, Side A

THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 6:00 P.M. All Members were present.

Chairman Voss announced that she had Request to Speak forms from the following people who are in favor of Senate Bill 1220:

Michael Ratner, Chair, Arizona Tourism Alliance

Joe Yuhas, Executive Director, Arizona Restaurant Association

Bob Fannin, representing Enterprise Leasing, testified in support of S.B. 1220. He advised that Enterprise supports the bill with the addition of the Voss amendment which will make the exemption on car rental constitutional (Attachment 5).

Timothy Wagner, representing himself, Peoria, stated support for S.B. 1220. He advised he is a graphic designer and familiar with the perception the public has with an organization based on its identity. He spoke of the importance of team identity to its community, and requested that this issue of regionally identifying to the State be considered by the Committee to improve support from the public who may approve a 30-year home for the team. He distributed information on teams that build stadiums because of fan support in a regional identity (Attachment 6).

John Junker, President, Fiesta Bowl, testified in support of this legislation. He stated that the opportunity to have a facility such as what is being proposed is extremely important to Arizona as it continues to compete in the marketplace. He referred to earlier testimony that the Fiesta Bowl would consider a bid to move to Houston. He said he would like to clarify that the Fiesta Bowl is Arizona born and bred, and is moving nowhere. The Fiesta Bowl is a healthy, economic impact for all of Arizona. Arizonans enjoy and participate in, and benefit from the economic impact of the Bowl’s more than fifty events. The Fiesta Bowl has generated $175 million as a nonprofit community-based organization to the colleges and universities who have played in the Bowl, as well as $100,000 a year in local scholarships and charitable efforts.

In response to Mr. Carpenter’s query, Mr. Junker revealed that efforts to get the Fiesta Bowl here in Arizona began in 1971 after three years of effort. The Fiesta Bowl is now the largest bowl game in the nation in terms of payout to participating teams.

Bill Lautenbach, representing himself, Phoenix, spoke in opposition to S.B. 1220. He said he agree with the creation of a tourism sports authority. He distributed a packet (Attachment 7). He asked for an amendment to deal with lack of information. He explained that his opposition to the bill is all the unidentified particulars of the product. At this time, he said this is an unspoken, undefined project. It is open-ended, not finely designed, and to be built on an undetermined site. He opined that citizens will want a better idea of what their tax dollars will buy.

Mr. Lautenbach said he believes the proposed stadium plan will be a major wind tunnel. It does not provide shade and the beams will be a large pigeon roost. He spoke against giving this to a family enterprise that has changed affiliations with cities twice in the past. He suggested that Sun Devil stadium is a much better proposal for the following reasons: renovation costs will be less, the land is owned by the State, parking and off-site improvements are in place, and activities can continue during renovation. He displayed a picture of a proposal he designed (Attachment 7). He said his proposal to renovate Sun Devil stadium will cost $180 million. Every part of his proposal generates revenue. He said the University’s value to Arizona far exceeds the value of any professional team and its naming rights. He said he does not disagree with the bill in its entirety. He expressed agreement with the Cactus League and the Fiesta Bowl provisions.

Mr. Nichols said he would like to see the Authority reconsider its alternatives.

Mr. Carpenter said he values both sides of the picture. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Lautenbach for presenting his proposal.

Mr. Lautenbach related that members of the Task Force only considered one idea. He said he never had the opportunity to present his proposal to them.

Vice Chair Carpenter moved that S.B. 1220 do pass.

Vice Chair Carpenter moved that the Voss 48-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/7/00 be adopted (Attachment 1).

Mr. Nichols moved that the Nichols three-page amendment dated 3/9/00 to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 8).

Mr. Nichols explained that his three-page amendment allows Pima County to institute a half percent sales tax to promote tourism in Pima County (Attachment 8). He said it has nothing to do with building another stadium in Pima County.

Tom Tracy, Chairman of the Board, Southern Arizona Innkeepers Association, expressed support of S.B. 1220. He stated that the bill is a tourism retention and enhancement proposal, and the Association is highly supportive of it from that perspective. The bill provides dedicated funding for the Office of Tourism. He thanked Mr. Nichols for offering an amendment giving Pima County the opportunity to have a hotel tax which would be administered by the Office of Tourism and passed on to tourism-promotion agencies.

Mr. Nichols announced that he is withdrawing his motion since the proposal was not fully assessed by the business community in Southern Arizona. He said he will offer a floor amendment if the proposal has the support of the general community in Pima County.

Chairman Voss asked whether this amendment would allow Tucson to act on a bed tax. Mr. Tracy replied in the affirmative.

Chairman Voss announced that she had a Request to Speak form from the following person who is in favor of the Nichols amendment to Senate Bill 1220:

Jonathan Walker, President, Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau

Mr. Nichols withdrew his motion that his three-page amendment to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 8).

Mr. Nichols moved that the Nichols six-line amendment dated 3/9/00 to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 9).

Mr. Nichols explained that the six-line amendment changes the number of people appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House from one to two, and provides that they will not be of the same political party (Attachment 9). He said it is a bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Wong asked whether this refers to legislative members of the Authority. Ms. Jones answered that this is the other Board that oversees the Authority. Mr. Wong queried whether any legislators are serving on the Board. Ms. Jones said this would have four members appointed by the Legislature. Chairman Voss pointed out that members could be nonlegislative members. Ms. Jones agreed. She said it was not set up for them to be legislators. Mr. Wong advised that he will propose a floor amendment to insure that the appointees will be legislators.

Mr. Betts advised that the State Supreme Court held in the Constitutional Defense Council case (CDC) that a Board like this not have more legislative appointees than Executive Branch appointees. He said that the number of Executive Branch appointees will have to be increased if this passes for it to be constitutional.

Question was called for that the Nichols amendment be adopted (Attachment 9). The motion carried.

Mr. Wong moved that the Wong two-line amendment dated 3/8/00 to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 10).

Mr. Wong explained that his two-line amendment increases the capital contribution from the NFL team from $75 million to $175 million.

Mr. Nichols wondered whether the sponsor will still be the sponsor if the amount is set too high.

Chairman Voss pointed out that several stadiums did not ask their tenants to pay anything.

Mr. Betts advised that the Task Force scrutinized every stadium deal made. The average percentage for the sponsor to pay was $54 million. In recent stadiums deals, many teams have paid out virtually nothing. He said there is no way the Cardinals can spend that kind of money and still remain competitive in the NFL. He opined that the Wong amendment will kill the bill.

Mr. Nichols asked for information on percentages and actual dollar amounts that other teams have paid. Mr. Betts said he will provide that information.

In response to Mr. Wong, Mr. Betts advised that there are no privatization football stadium deals.

Chairman Voss spoke in opposition to the Wong amendment. She said she opposes increasing the contribution level.

Question was called for on Mr. Wong’s motion that the two-line amendment be adopted (Attachment 10). The motion failed.

Mr. Wong moved that the Wong 22-line amendment dated 3/8/00 to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 11).

Mr. Wong explained that his 22-line amendment provides a clearer sunset to the Authority after the payment of the bonds. The amendment also provides for performance audits.

Chairman Voss asked whether a specific end date is addressed in the strike-everything amendment, and what happens if the Authority still has debt to pay and the sunset occurs. Ms. Jones advised that the amendment provides for the Authority to sunset after outstanding debt or other contractual obligations are paid. She noted there are other issues that have to be addressed relating to sunset because the Authority is a political subdivision which has assets.

Tape 2, Side B

Mr. Nichols asked what would be done with the assets under the Wong amendment. Mr. Wong opined that the prudent thing would be for the Board to come back to the Legislature to ask for a renewal. Mr. Nichols commented that does not seem to be a sound approach. Mr. Betts advised that he would be happy to work out an oversight provision.

After discussion, Mr. Wong withdrew his amendment (Attachment 11).

Mr. Wong moved that the Wong 15-line amendment dated 3/8/00 to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 12).

Mr. Wong explained that the 15-line amendment exempts residents of the State who have Arizona driver licenses from the hotel and car rental tax. He said his amendment will provide the greatest minimal impact to residents.

Mr. Nichols questioned whether the amendment is constitutional. He said he believes it is discriminatory and puts the State in legal jeopardy. Ms. Jones advised that the first two lines of the Wong amendment are also in the Voss amendment. The language was included to address some constitutional problems relating to anyone having a car repaired. The rest of the amendment would have to be looked at as to constitutionality. She said she believes there could be some issues raised.

Mr. Betts said the language was drafted as narrowly as possible because of the constitutionality issue. Under the Interstate Commerce clause, a resident cannot be deemed exempt. A person can be granted an exemption if his vehicle is being replaced.

Chairman Voss asked whether the amendment eliminates all the funding available to pay off the Cactus League bonds. Ms. Jones replied in the negative. She said she believes most cars are rented by nonresidents.

Mr. Miranda stated that he would like Rules to determine whether the amendment is constitutional. He said he believes the voters would be in favor of it.

Mr. Fannin testified that he believes the amendment to exempt Maricopa County residents from the tax would kill the whole exemption, including the replacement vehicle exemption. For that reason, he said he opposes the Wong amendment.

Chairman Voss spoke against the Wong amendment because of the constitutionality issue. She stated that certain nonresidents cannot be targeted.

Mr. Nichols queried whether the Wong amendment is in conflict with the Voss amendment (Attachment 5). Ms. Voss replied in the negative. She said she believes it can be blended with her amendment.

Mr. Nichols asked what would happen if Rules rules the Wong amendment is unconstitutional. Ms. Jones advised that Rules can recommend the removal of the language.

Mr. Wong announced that he will not withdraw his amendment. He said he will defer to a ruling by Rules before withdrawing his amendment.

Question was called on Mr. Wong’s motion that the 15-line amendment dated 3/8/00 be adopted (Attachment 12). The motion carried.

Vice Chair Carpenter moved that the Voss 16-line amendment dated 3/8/00 to the 48-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 5).

Chairman Voss explained that her amendment takes care of constitutionality problems with regard to the vehicle replacement language. The amendment also addresses the coterminous lease by the Cardinals with the length of the lease.

Question was called for on Vice Chair Carpenter’s motion that the Voss amendment be adopted (Attachment 5). The motion carried.

Vice Chair Carpenter moved that the Voss 48-page strike-everything amendment dated 3/7/00 as amended be adopted (Attachment 1).

Chairman Voss announced that she had Request to Speak forms from the following people who are in favor of Senate Bill 1220:

Carol Baily, President and CEO, Chandler Chamber of Commerce

Lee Miller, representing AAA of Arizona

Phil MacDonnell, representing Arizona Wholesale Beer and Liquor Association

Joe Standley, Business Manager, Phoenix Building Trades/Ironworkers

Ed Wren, representing Arizona Hotel and Motel Association

Samantha Fearn, Vice President of Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce

John Snider, Managing Director, Dain Rauscher

Craig Whitney, Vice President of Public Affairs, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce

Michael Bidwill, Vice President and General Manager, Arizona Cardinals

Sandra Junck, representing Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau

Dan Anderson, Organizer, IBEW Local Union 640

John Otero, Organizer, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 350

Lonnie Tinder, Business Manager, Painters Local Union 86