Arizona 56th Legislature - Second Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 1 R cosponsors

SB 1665 — municipal development; permits; review

Last action — FAILED

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed House
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 56th Legislature - Second Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

279 added · 322 removed

Plain-language change summary

The amendment to SB 1665 introduces a new provision allowing applicants for single-family residential building permits to have their applications reviewed by a qualified third party, which they can select. This change expands the options for who can conduct these reviews, moving away from requiring the review to be done by municipal employees only. Additionally, the time frame for a municipality to respond to these applications has shifted from a denial requirement to one of responding with revisions. This matters because it can help streamline the permitting process and reduce potential delays for homeowners looking to build, ultimately facilitating home construction in the community.

→
Previous
Latest
House Engrossed Senate Bill municipal development;
Senate Engrossed municipal development;
applicability;
IF A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OR RESPOND WITH REQUIRED ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO AN APPLICATION FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN FIFTEEN WORKING DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, ANY REQUIRED REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION MAY BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.
IF A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OR RESPOND WITH REQUIRED REVISIONS TO AN APPLICATION FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN FIFTEEN WORKING DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, ANY REQUIRED REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION MAY BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT MAY NOT BE THE APPLICANT, A PERSON WHOSE WORK IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION OR A PERSON WITH A FINANCIAL OR PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE APPLICATION OR PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION OTHER THAN COMPENSATION FOR THE WORK PERFORMED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
THE QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT MAY NOT BE THE APPLICANT, A PERSON WHOSE WORK IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION OR A PERSON WITH A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE WORK THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION.
AN ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT WHO IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO TITLE 32, CHAPTER 1.
A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED BY ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY TO REVIEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
A PERSON WHO IS CERTIFIED BY AN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MODEL CODES AND STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SAFETY WITH A CREDENTIAL SPECIFIC TO THE RESIDENTIAL CODE ON SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION AND WHO ATTENDS A CLASS OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY THAT EXCLUSIVELY REVIEWS THE MUNICIPALITY'S ADOPTED CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION, IF THE MUNICIPALITY REQUIRES THE PERSON TO ATTEND THE CLASS AND IF THE CLASS IS OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.
AN ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT WHO IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO TITLE 32, CHAPTER 1.
4.
A PERSON WHO IS CERTIFIED BY AN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MODEL CODES AND STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SAFETY.
IF A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT CONDUCT AN INSPECTION FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS AFTER AN INSPECTION REQUEST, THE INSPECTION MAY BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT.
IF A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT CONDUCT AN INSPECTION REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS AFTER AN INSPECTION REQUEST, ANY REQUIRED INSPECTION MAY BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT MAY NOT BE THE APPLICANT, A PERSON WHOSE WORK IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION OR A PERSON WITH A FINANCIAL OR PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE APPLICATION OR PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION OTHER THAN COMPENSATION FOR THE WORK PERFORMED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
THE QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT MAY NOT BE THE APPLICANT OR A PERSON WHOSE WORK IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION.
A PERSON WHO IS CERTIFIED TO INSPECT BUILDINGS BY AN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MODEL CODES AND STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SAFETY WITH A CREDENTIAL SPECIFIC TO THE RESIDENTIAL CODE ON SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION AND WHO ATTENDS A CLASS OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY THAT EXCLUSIVELY REVIEWS THE MUNICIPALITY'S ADOPTED CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION, IF THE MUNICIPALITY - 1 - S.B.
A PERSON WHO IS CERTIFIED TO INSPECT BUILDINGS BY AN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MODEL CODES AND STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SAFETY.
1665 REQUIRES THE PERSON TO ATTEND THE CLASS AND IF THE CLASS IS OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.
AN ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT WHO IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO TITLE 32, CHAPTER 1.
A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED BY THE MUNICIPALITY AS A BUILDING INSPECTOR.
A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED BY A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR THAT IS IDENTIFIED ON A LIST OF APPROVED VENDORS BY THE MUNICIPALITY IF THE LIST OF APPROVED VENDORS HAS MORE THAN ONE VENDOR.
A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED BY ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY AS A BUILDING INSPECTOR.
4.
AN ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT WHO IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO TITLE 32, CHAPTER 1.
A THIRD PARTY WHO REVIEWS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION OR WHO PERFORMS AN INSPECTION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL DO BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
A THIRD PARTY WHO REVIEWS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION OR WHO PERFORMS AN INSPECTION REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL DO BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.
- 1 - S.B.
1665 1.
PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE APPLICANT OF THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW OR INSPECTION.
PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW OR INSPECTION.
THE APPLICANT MAY APPEAL ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
A PERSON MAY APPEAL TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
AN APPEAL FILED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION F OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE FILED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WITHIN FIFTEEN WORKING DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION OR RESULT BEING APPEALED.
AN APPEAL FILED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION F OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE FILED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE DECISION BEING APPEALED WAS MADE.
IF A DECISION IS NOT RENDERED WITHIN SIXTY WORKING DAYS AFTER THE APPEAL IS FILED, THE APPLICATION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE DEEMED APPROVED OR THE INSPECTION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL IS WAIVED.
IF THE GOVERNING BODY HEARING THE APPEAL DOES NOT AFFIRM THE DECISION BEING APPEALED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE APPEAL IS FILED, THE APPLICATION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE DEEMED APPROVED OR THE INSPECTION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL IS WAIVED.
THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FEES AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OR INSPECTION AND SHALL PAY THE FEES AND COSTS EITHER DIRECTLY TO THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR OR IN AN AGREED ALTERNATIVE MANNER.
THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING OR COLLECTING ANY FEES OR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OR INSPECTION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
- 2 - S.B.
1665 J.
THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO APPLICATIONS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OR FOR FLOODPLAIN REVIEWS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
K.
THIS SECTION DOES NOT MODIFY THE AUTHORITY OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL TO WITHHOLD A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNICIPALITY'S ADOPTED CODES AND ORDINANCES.
L.
exemption;
exemptions A.
definition A.
The overall time frame for each type of license shall state separately the administrative completeness review time frame and the substantive review time frame and shall be posted on the municipality's website or the website of an association of cities and towns if the municipality does not have a website.
The overall time frame for each type of license shall state separately the administrative completeness review time frame and the substantive review time frame and shall be posted on the municipality's - 2 - S.B.
1665 website or the website of an association of cities and towns if the municipality does not have a website.
- 3 - S.B.
7.
1665 7.
E.
- 3 - S.B.
1665 E.
A municipality may consider an application withdrawn if, by fifteen days or more after the date of notice, as established by the municipality, the applicant does not supply the documentation or information requested or an - 4 - S.B.
A municipality may consider an application withdrawn if, by fifteen days or more after the date of notice, as established by the municipality, the applicant does not supply the documentation or information requested or an explanation of why the information cannot be provided within the established time period.
Show all 71 changed rows (31 more)
Previous
Latest
1665 explanation of why the information cannot be provided within the established time period.
If a municipality issues a comprehensive written or electronic request or a supplemental request for corrections, the substantive review time frame and the overall time frame are suspended from the date the request is issued until the date that the municipality receives the corrections from the applicant.
If a municipality issues a comprehensive written or electronic request or a supplemental request for corrections, the substantive review time frame and the overall time frame are suspended from the date the request is issued until the date that the - 4 - S.B.
1665 municipality receives the corrections from the applicant.
EXCEPT FOR AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6 OR 6.1 OF THIS TITLE, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT DENY A LICENSE APPLICATION THAT IS NECESSARY FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE MUNICIPALITY CONSIDERS THE APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.
EXCEPT FOR AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6.1 OF THIS TITLE, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT DENY A LICENSE APPLICATION THAT IS NECESSARY FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE MUNICIPALITY CONSIDERS THE APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.
- 5 - S.B.
I.
1665 I.
An explanation of the applicant's right to resubmit the application, the total amount of fees that will be assessed if the applicant resubmits the application and the method in which those fees were calculated.
An explanation of the applicant's right to resubmit the application, the total amount of fees that will be assessed if the - 5 - S.B.
1665 applicant resubmits the application and the method in which those fees were calculated.
If a municipality MAKES MORE THAN ONE COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS AND ONE SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS LIMITED TO PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ISSUES OR IN RESPONSE TO MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT OR does not issue the applicant the written or electronic notice granting, CONDITIONALLY GRANTING or denying a license within the overall time frame or within the mutually agreed on time frame extension, the municipality shall refund to the applicant all fees charged for reviewing and acting on the application for the license, and shall excuse payment of any fees that have not yet been paid.
If a municipality MAKES MORE THAN ONE COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS AND ONE SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS LIMITED TO PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ISSUES OR IN RESPONSE TO MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT OR does not issue the applicant the written or electronic notice granting, CONDITIONALLY GRANTING or denying a license within the overall time frame or within the mutually agreed on time frame extension, the municipality shall refund to the applicant all fees charged for reviewing and acting on the application for the license, and shall excuse payment of any fees that have not yet been paid AND SHALL PAY ANY MONETARY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE DELAY.
The municipality shall not require an applicant to submit an application for a refund pursuant to this subsection.
The municipality shall not require an applicant to submit an application for a refund pursuant to this subsection BUT MAY REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF MONETARY DAMAGES.
The refund shall be made within thirty working days after the expiration of the overall time frame or the time frame extension.
The refund shall be made within thirty working days after the expiration of the overall time frame or the time frame extension AND THE PAYMENT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES SHALL BE MADE WITHIN THIRTY WORKING DAYS AFTER THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE.
If an application for a license is denied and the applicant resubmits the application for the same purposes with only revisions or corrections to the original application, the municipality shall not assess - 6 - S.B.
If an application for a license is denied and the applicant resubmits the application for the same purposes with only revisions or corrections to the original application, the municipality shall not assess any additional application fees that exceed the cost of processing the resubmitted revisions or corrections.
1665 any additional application fees that exceed the cost of processing the resubmitted revisions or corrections.
A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT MODIFY, RESCIND OR REQUEST ANY SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS OR REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED PLAN OR PERMIT FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUCTION IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLAN OR PERMIT UNLESS THE MODIFICATION, RESCISSION OR REVISION IS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.
REQUIRED TO ADDRESS A FIELD CONDITION THAT WAS UNKNOWN WHEN THE PLAN OR PERMIT WAS REVIEWED.
2.
IS MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT'S DESIGNEE OR A SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR OWNER'S DESIGNEE IF THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPROVED PLAN OR PERMIT CHANGES OWNERSHIP.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, "APPLICANT" MEANS A PERSON THAT IS SEEKING APPROVAL OR HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM A MUNICIPALITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OR LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
3.
IS MADE BY THE MUNICIPALITY TO CORRECT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN OBJECTIVE CODE REQUIREMENT THAT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED BY A THIRD PARTY WHO CONDUCTED A PLAN REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 9-469.
ANY AMBIGUITY OR NECESSARY INTERPRETATION SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVED PLAN OR PERMIT.
N.
O.
1.
- 6 - S.B.
1665 1.
"Subdivision" means improved or unimproved land or lands divided for the purposes of financing, sale or lease, whether immediate or future, into four or more lots, tracts or parcels of land, or, if a new street is - 7 - S.B.
"Subdivision" means improved or unimproved land or lands divided for the purposes of financing, sale or lease, whether immediate or future, into four or more lots, tracts or parcels of land, or, if a new street is involved, any such property that is divided into two or more lots, tracts or parcels of land, or, any such property, the boundaries of which have been fixed by a recorded plat, which is divided into more than two parts.
1665 involved, any such property that is divided into two or more lots, tracts or parcels of land, or, any such property, the boundaries of which have been fixed by a recorded plat, which is divided into more than two parts.
P.
- 7 -
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "OBJECTIVE" MEANS INVOLVING NO PERSONAL OR SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT AND BEING UNIFORMLY VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO AN EXTERNAL AND UNIFORM BENCHMARK, STANDARD OR CRITERION THAT IS AVAILABLE AND KNOWABLE TO THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED.
- 8 -
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (6)

Action History

  1. FAILED

  2. DPA

  3. PASSED

  4. DPA

  5. House Placed on Consent Calendar

  6. DP

  7. House Second Reading

  8. House First Reading.

  9. Transmit to House

  10. PASSED

  11. DPA

  12. DP

  13. Senate Second Reading

  14. Senate First Reading

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 92 not signed on · 50 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (92)

92 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 92 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

failed to pass

Failed 18 Yea · 40 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democrat 12100
Republican 14702
Unaffiliated 31200
Total 184002
% of votes cast 30%67%0%3%
How each member voted (60)
Member Party Vote
Austin Smith — Nay
Barbara Parker — Nay
Ben Toma — Yea
Charles W Lucking — Nay
Cory McGarr — Nay
David L. Cook — Yea
Deborah Nardozzi — Nay
Jacqueline Parker — Nay
Jennifer Pawlik — Nay
Judy Schwiebert — Nay
Justin Heap — Nay
Keith Seaman — Nay
Laura Terech — Nay
Melody Hernandez — Nay
Travis W. Grantham — Yea
Alma Hernandez Democrat Nay
Analise Ortiz Democrat Nay
Betty J Villegas Democrat Nay
Cesar Aguilar Democrat Nay
Christopher Mathis Democrat Nay
Consuelo Hernandez Democrat Nay
Elda Luna-Nájera Democrat Nay
Junelle Cavero Democrat Nay
Lorena Austin Democrat Nay
Lupe Contreras Democrat Nay
Lydia Hernandez Democrat Nay
Mae Peshlakai Democrat Nay
Mariana Sandoval Democrat Nay
Myron Tsosie Democrat Nay
Nancy Gutierrez Democrat Nay
Oscar De Los Santos Democrat Nay
Patty Contreras Democrat Nay
Quantá Crews Democrat Nay
Sarah Liguori Democrat Nay
Seth Blattman Democrat Nay
Stacey Travers Democrat Yea
Stephanie Stahl Hamilton Democrat Nay
Alexander Kolodin Republican Nay
Beverly Pingerelli Republican Nay
David Livingston Republican Yea
David Marshall, Sr. Republican Nay
Gail Griffin Republican Yea
John Gillette Republican Yea
Joseph Chaplik Republican Nay
Julie Willoughby Republican Yea
Justin Wilmeth Republican Yea
Kevin Payne Republican Yea
Laurin Hendrix Republican Nay
Leo Biasiucci Republican Yea
Lupe Diaz Republican Yea
Matt Gress Republican Nay
Michael Carbone Republican Yea
Michele Peña Republican Yea
Neal Carter Republican Yea
Quang H Nguyen Republican Yea
Rachel Keshel Republican Nay
Selina Bliss Republican Not Voting
Steve Montenegro Republican Not Voting
Teresa Martinez Republican Yea
Timothy "Tim" Dunn Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed

Passed 20 Yea · 10 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democrat 5600
Unaffiliated 5300
Republican 10100
Total 201000
% of votes cast 67%33%0%0%
How each member voted (30)
Member Party Vote
Anna Hernandez — Yea
Anthony Kern — Yea
Christine Marsh — Nay
Juan Mendez — Nay
Justine Wadsack — Nay
Ken Bennett — Yea
Sine Kerr — Yea
Sonny Borrelli — Yea
Brian Fernandez Democrat Nay
Catherine Miranda Democrat Nay
Denise “Mitzi” Epstein Democrat Nay
Eva Burch Democrat Yea
Eva Diaz Democrat Nay
Flavio Bravo Democrat Yea
Lela Alston Democrat Nay
Priya Sundareshan Democrat Nay
Rosanna Gabaldón Democrat Yea
Sally Ann Gonzales Democrat Yea
Theresa Hatathlie Democrat Yea
David C. Farnsworth Republican Yea
David Gowan Republican Yea
Frank Carroll Republican Yea
J.D. Mesnard Republican Yea
Jake Hoffman Republican Nay
Janae Shamp Republican Yea
John Kavanagh Republican Yea
Shawnna Bolick Republican Yea
Thomas "T.J." Shope Republican Yea
Warren Petersen Republican Yea
Wendy Rogers Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors SB 1665?
SB 1665 is sponsored by David Gowan (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 1665?
This bill died with 56th Legislature - Second Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1665?
Track SB 1665 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1665

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1665

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →