Senate Bill 1566 (signed May 29, 2026; effective September 12, 2026) bars cities, towns and counties from maliciously delaying their adopted licensing time frames—or a response to an application—for single-family home construction. And if the jurisdiction crosses the line from slow to deliberately obstructive?
The Attorney General's Office can impose a $5,000 penalty per violation.
What SB 1566 actually does
Cities and towns already must adopt and post licensing time frames (A.R.S. § 9-835), and counties have the same duty (A.R.S. § 11-1605). SB 1566 doesn't change that. State law also already requires cities to refund review fees when they miss their time frames on residential permits. What's new is the enforcement mechanism.
If a municipality or county is found to be intentionally obstructing the approval of licenses or creating delays out of malice, it faces a $5,000 penalty per violation, enforced by the Attorney General's Office. The key word: malice.
"Malice is a very high standard. It has to be intentional," said the bill's sponsor, Senate President Warren Petersen, during a House committee hearing in March.
Petersen clarified: "This doesn't happen a lot, but we do hear about anecdotes where people are intentionally delaying projects, there's no reason—there's nothing that's being waited on."
We're not talking about understaffed plan-review teams working through a backlog. We're talking about cases where the delay serves no code-enforcement purpose.
Who this helps (and who it doesn't)
SB 1566 won't speed up a legitimately complex review. If your project triggers floodplain overlay, wildfire interface provisions, and a use permit, the timeline reflects real work. The bill targets something narrower. "Malicious" covers acting with specific intent to obstruct approval, imposing requirements no code or law specifically authorizes, repeated unexplained delays of more than twice the adopted time frame, and delays tied to the applicant's other pending applications. Resource constraints, good-faith errors and enforcement of adopted technical codes don't count.
Supporters argued that "time is money" and delays add costs and uncertainty, disincentivizing investment in homes. That's the builder angle. For jurisdictions, the risk is reputational. A $5,000 fine isn't going to bankrupt a city, but an Attorney General finding of malice in permit administration is the kind of thing that gets covered in the local paper.
Several Arizona municipalities opposed the bill, and most Democrats in the House and Senate voted against it.
Rep. Quantá Crews (D-Phoenix), who previously worked in the County Assessor's Office, said delays were usually justified: "I have had projects that for properties have taken me months, and not because I was stalling anything. I just wanted to make sure that it was done correctly."
That's fair. The bill isn't designed to punish thoroughness. It's designed to punish the opposite—cases where a project sits because someone at the jurisdiction level decided it should.
What this means if you're submitting in Arizona
First: know your jurisdiction's published time frames. Every city must post them on its website (A.R.S. § 9-835). If a plan sits past that window with no deficiency notice and no approval, document it.
Second: understand that "malice" is a high bar, proven by clear and convincing evidence. You'll need evidence of intent, or of repeated unexplained delays of more than twice the adopted time frame. That might mean:
- Multiple resubmissions for the same minor issue that could have been consolidated
- Extended silence after a complete application with no deficiency letter
- Verbal confirmation from staff that the application is "fine" but still no issuance
Third: this doesn't replace good project coordination. SB 1566 gives you a remedy after the fact. It doesn't give you leverage during review. If your drawings are incomplete, your setbacks are wrong, or your energy calc is missing, the jurisdiction has every right to reject the submittal—and the clock resets.
The best way to avoid delay is to submit clean. That means coordinated sheets, a complete application checklist, and a pre-submittal meeting if the jurisdiction offers one. SB 1566 won't fix a bad application. It might fix a jurisdiction that's sitting on a good one for no defensible reason.
The bigger picture: Arizona's permit environment
Arizona operates under a home-rule framework. Each city and county adopts the International Codes independently, with local amendments.
Pima County's 2024 codes took effect January 1, 2026 (its energy code is on a separate track), and Phoenix has enforced the 2024 Phoenix Building Construction Code since August 1, 2025. That patchwork makes statewide permit reform tricky—what works in Scottsdale doesn't necessarily translate to Yuma.
SB 1566 doesn't touch that structure. It doesn't standardize review timelines or impose a universal permitting process. It simply says: if a city, town or county maliciously delays—as the statute defines it—the Attorney General can impose a $5,000 penalty per violation, on clear and convincing evidence.
For more on navigating Arizona's jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction code landscape, see our Arizona locations guide.
What we're watching
This bill passed, but enforcement depends on the AG's willingness to investigate complaints. Will the office take up cases? Will $5,000 be enough of a deterrent to change behavior at the AHJ level? We don't know yet.
What we do know: from September 12, 2026, Arizona builders have a tool they didn't have before. Whether it gets used—and whether it works—remains to be seen.
If you're working on single-family projects in Arizona and run into a delay that feels less like thoroughness and more like obstruction, document everything. SB 1566's effective date is September 12, 2026.
For help navigating Arizona permit processes or coordinating submittals across jurisdictions, reach out. We take projects in all 50 states.