WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1987

Disclosures in land use proceedings; statewide application.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Ian Lovejoy

HB 1987 would raise the Madison County Economic Development Authority's bond cap, allowing more debt for projects and impacting taxpayers, local governments, and developers.

Left in Counties, Cities and Towns
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1987

Summary — HB 1987 (Madison County: increase bonds for Madison County Economic Development Authority)

Status: Died in Committee
Introduced: January 22, 2025
Classification: Local and Private Legislation
Primary sponsor(s): Ennett; cosponsor K. Ferguson; also associated names D. Wallace and Rep. Tony M. McCombie (materials provided appear to mix multiple jurisdictions)
Related bill: HB 1986

Purpose / Intent

According to the bill title, HB 1987 was intended to increase the maximum amount of bonds that the Madison County Economic Development Authority (MCEDA) is authorized to issue. The stated policy aim of such legislation is typically to allow the local development authority to raise additional capital for economic development projects (infrastructure, site development, business incentives, public improvements, etc.).

Key provisions (as expected from the title)

  • Increase the statutory cap on the total principal amount of bonds the MCEDA may issue.
  • Allow the Authority to issue additional revenue or general-obligation bonds (type not specified in the materials provided).
  • Presumably amend the county- or authority-specific statute that currently limits bond issuance to a fixed amount (specific dollar figures were not included in the documents supplied).

Note: The actual bill text with specific dollar amounts, conditions, or limitations (e.g., purpose restrictions, debt service provisions, voter-approval requirements, or repayment source) was not included. Therefore the precise legal changes could not be confirmed.

Who would be affected

  • Madison County Economic Development Authority — would gain authority to finance additional projects.
  • Local governments and taxpayers — potentially affected if new bonds are backed by county revenue or general obligation pledges (impact depends on bond type and repayment source).
  • Developers and businesses — may benefit from increased access to publicly financed infrastructure or incentives.
  • Bond investors and credit analysts — would evaluate any new bonds for creditworthiness.

Procedural history

  • Filed: January 22, 2025
  • Read first time / referred to committee (dates vary in supplied materials)
  • Final status: Died in Committee (Died In Committee at Sine Die adjournment)

Important notes and discrepancies in supplied materials

The version content provided with the request mixes multiple, unrelated bills and jurisdictions:
- An Arkansas bill (amending civil penalties for the State Board of Embalmers, Funeral Directors, Cemeteries, and Burial Services).
- An Illinois appropriation bill (LRB104… HB1987 appropriating $2 to the Guardianship and Advocacy Commission).
- A collection of legislative action timestamps that appear to come from different states and committees.

Because the actual statutory language or numeric bond-cap increase for the Madison County bill was not included, this summary is limited to the bill’s stated purpose and likely effects. If you can provide the bill’s text or the specific provision(s) amending the existing Madison County bond cap (including current and proposed dollar amounts and any conditions), I can produce a precise, clause-by-clause summary and fiscal/impact analysis.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.