Overview
A proposal to add A.R.S. §§ 33-1261.01 and 33-1816.01 to prohibit planned community and condominium associations from prohibiting a device that provides lighted display of a home address. Allows associations to adopt reasonable rules regulating the device, but the rules cannot prevent installation, defeat the purpose of the device, impair its functioning, restrict its use or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device. Provides for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the party who substantially prevails in an action against a board of directors for violation of this statute.
Key Changes
Current Law
Associations may adopt architectural restrictions and standards that could prohibit or limit installation of lighted address displays, subject to general statutory limitations on association authority.
Proposed Amendment (Failed)
- Prohibition on Banning Lighted Address Devices: Associations cannot prohibit devices that provide lighted display of a home address.
- Emergency Signaling Feature: The lighted address device may flash when activated to signal the location of an emergency.
- Low-Light Adjustment: The device has a low-light adjustment feature.
- Illumination Limit: Illumination from lighted home address devices is limited to no more than 250 lux.
- Reasonable Regulation Permitted: Associations may adopt reasonable rules regulating the devices, but such rules cannot prevent installation, defeat the purpose of the device, impair its functioning, restrict its use, or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device.
- Attorney Fee Recovery: The party who substantially prevails in an action against a board of directors for violation of this statute may recover attorney fees and costs.
Legislative Timeline
- May 1, 2025 – House Third Read, FAILED 25-33-2
- April 29, 2025 – Floor amendment proposed by Rep. Jeff Weninger.
- The amendments proposed change the lighted home address device specification to include that the device flashes when activated to signal the location of an emergency and restore the lighted home address device specification that the device has a low-light adjustment.
- Passed out of the Committee of the Whole with a “Do Pass” recommendation.
- April 14, 2025 – Deemed constitutional and in proper form by House Committee on Rules; On consent calendar for Committee of the Whole
- March 25, 2025 – Passed out of House Committee on Commerce with “Do Pass Amended” recommendation
- March 19, 2025 – Amendment proposed by Rep. Jeff Weninger.
- The amendments proposed remove “red and blue” from the flashing lights and add that the flashing lights are to “signal the location of an emergency,” as opposed to indicating a pending response by police, fire or other emergency services and limit the illumination from the lighted home address devices to no more than 250 lux.
- March 19, 2025 – On the March 25, 2025 agenda for the House Committee on Commerce
- March 12, 2025 – House Second Read
- March 11, 2025 – House First Read; Assigned to House Committee on Commerce and House Committee on Rules
- March 5, 2025 – Senate Third Read, Approved by Senate 24-5-1 and expected to be transmitted to the House
- March 3, 2025 – On Senate Committee of the Whole Calendar; “Do Pass as Amended” recommendation
- February 24, 2025 – Deemed Proper for Consideration by Senate Committee on Rules; Recommended for Consent Calendar
- February 19, 2025 – Passed out of committee with a “Do Pass as Amended” recommendation
- February 18, 2025 – On the February 19, 2025 agenda for the Senate Committee on Government
- February 18, 2025 – Amendment proposed by Senator John Kavanagh.
- The amendment proposed clarifies that the flashing red and blue lights on lighted home address devices are for the purpose of indicating a pending response to the home by police, fire or emergency services.
- February 11, 2025 – Senate Second Read
- February 10, 2025 – Senate First Read; Assigned to the Senate Committee on Government and Senate Committee on Rules
Impact
The measure failed in the House after passing the Senate. Had it been enacted, associations would have been required to permit lighted home address devices designed to help emergency responders locate properties. The 250 lux illumination limit and low-light adjustment requirement would have balanced visibility needs with community aesthetic concerns. The emergency signaling feature allowing flashing lights would have provided a mechanism for residents to alert responders to active emergencies.
The restrictions on association regulations would have prevented boards from adopting rules that functionally prohibited the devices through cost, efficiency, or installation barriers.
The attorney fee provision would have provided enforcement incentive for owners whose installation rights were violated. The failure of this bill means associations retain authority to prohibit or heavily restrict such devices through architectural standards.