Arizona’s cities and towns would be prohibited from reducing their police department’s annual operating budget “by any amount” from the previous year, and if the cut back is more than 25 percent then local law enforcement functions would be taken over by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) unless the county sheriff wants to be in charge.
On Tuesday, the Senate Committee On Appropriations will consider SB1333, which is sponsored by committee chairman Sen. David Gowan (R-LD14). The expansive legislation, which just had its Second Read last week, would add two section to the Arizona Revised Statutes and amend two others, with an effective date retroactive to Jan. 1, 2021.
Among the provisions of Gowan’s bill is one which requires the State Treasurer to withhold state shared revenues in an amount equal to any reduction in a city or town’s police department. However, if the reduction exceeds 25 percent of the prior year’s budget then the Treasurer would have to withhold state shared monies “in an amount equal to the entire (police) budget for the previous year.”
But SB133 goes beyond budgetary mandates. In some instances, it would actually take control of a municipal police department away from local official and put it in the hands of the county sheriff or DPS.
As worded, Gowan’s bill would require DPS to “assume law enforcement functions” for any city or town that reduces its police budget by more than 25 percent, unless the local county sheriff selects to take on that authority. A city or town’s withheld state shared monies would then be paid to either the sheriff or DPS.
Gowan’s bill allows only three exceptions to the no-reduction mandate, including a decrease which is an adjustment for “health care, pension or other employee-related expenses.” The other exceptions involve a decrease which is an offset to a previous expenditure or if the municipality “does not have the monies to fund at the previous year level.”
The State Treasurer would not be allowed to withhold monies that a municipality “certifies as being necessary” for deposits or various debts incurred before the budget reduction. However, it is unclear who would judge whether a reduction is prohibited, necessary, or allowed.
SB1333 would also require DPS to offer employment to any municipal peace officer who can demonstrate his or her job was cut due to budgetary issues unless the local county sheriff offers the officer a job first.
The cities of Buckeye and Maricopa have already expressed their opposition to SB1333, as has the town of Fountain Hills and the League of Arizona Cities & Towns.