WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2485

LIQUOR-BOND REQUIREMENT

104th Regular Session Introduced by Curtis Tarver

HB 2485 updates two states: Illinois eases first-time liquor-licensing bonds; Arizona tightens land-permit disclosures and bars utility-provider discrimination.

Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2485

Summary — HB 2485

Note: The materials provided appear to combine text from two different bills both labeled “HB 2485” from different states. One is an Illinois bill (titled “Liquor — Bond Requirement”) amending the Illinois Liquor Control Act; the other is an Arizona bill amending multiple Arizona Revised Statutes related to land division and building-permit applications. The summary below treats each measure separately and flags the procedural status and sponsors supplied.

A. Illinois — “Liquor — Bond Requirement” (235 ILCS 5/8‑2)

Purpose

Amend the Liquor Control Act to modify bond requirements for manufacturers and importing distributors of alcoholic liquor.

Key provisions

  • Creates an exception so a manufacturer or importing distributor applying for a manufacturer’s or importing distributor’s license for the first time is not required to file a bond at initial licensing.
  • Retains the Department of Revenue’s authority to require a bond (previously required of most manufacturers/importing distributors) but clarifies that a bond may be required as a condition to renew a license for subsequent annual terms if the licensee exceeds $50,000 in tax liability in the prior year.
  • Directs the Illinois Liquor Control Commission not to renew a manufacturer’s or importing distributor’s license if the Department of Revenue notifies the Commission that the applicant is required to file and has not filed a satisfactory bond approved by the Department.
  • Removes prior language that made issuance of an initial manufacturer’s or importing distributor’s license contingent on Department confirmation that a satisfactory bond was filed and approved.

Numbers/details retained from existing law

  • Historical bond range: $1,000 to $100,000 (on a Department‑approved form with acceptable surety).
  • Tax reporting/payment timing provisions (monthly returns/payments due on/around the 15th) remain in the statutory section being amended.

Potential impact

  • Lowers an initial financial barrier for first-time manufacturers/importing distributors seeking licensure (may encourage new entrants).
  • Shifts state security focus to license renewable periods and to entities whose tax liability exceeds $50,000, targeting larger operators.
  • Could increase administrative coordination between Department of Revenue and the Liquor Control Commission to enforce bond/renewal rules and manage revenue risk.

Procedural status (from provided record)

  • Introduced/Filed: early February 2025 (Rep. Curtis J. Tarver, II listed as filer in materials).
  • Readings and committee referrals listed in the document (see “Legislative Actions” for dates).

B. Arizona — Land division and building‑permit changes (amendments to ARS §§ 11‑321, 11‑831, 32‑2101, 32‑2163, 32‑2181, 32‑2185.09, 33‑422)

Purpose

Amend county building‑permit and land‑division rules to add attestation and disclosure requirements, clarify utility provider non‑discrimination, and modify land‑division review and subdivision reporting requirements.

Key provisions (selected)

  • Counties may not deny a building permit based on the choice of utility provider; permit conditions and fees cannot have the effect of restricting use of an authorized utility provider.
  • Building‑permit applicants for new single‑family homes must identify ownership interests in the property.
  • For single‑family permits within subdivisions (per ARS § 32‑2101), the application must include an approved public report (ARS § 32‑2181) when the property owner owns six or more properties within the parent parcel or is a subdivider intending to create a subdivision.
  • Exemptions to the public‑report requirement are provided for applicants already exempt under §§ 32‑2181.01 or 32‑2181.02 (with evidence), and for properties inside or outside Active Management Areas subject to assured‑water‑supply compliance evidence.
  • Section 11‑831 (land division review) continues/clarifies procedure allowing staff review and automatic approval if county does not act within 30 days; sets conditions under which a parcel split must be approved (zoning, access, utility easements, affidavit/oath requirements).

Affected parties

  • County governments (permitting and review procedures)
  • Property owners, subdividers, developers of single‑family residential homes
  • Utility providers (non‑discrimination protections)
  • Real estate and permitting officials (additional proof/documentation requirements, water‑supply compliance checks)

Potential impact

  • Increases disclosure and documentation at permit application (ownership, water‑supply assurances), likely raising administrative checks for multiple‑property owners and subdividers.
  • Limits counties’ ability to condition permits on choice of utility provider, potentially affecting local utility planning and permit enforcement.
  • Speeds some land‑division approvals via 30‑day automatic approval if counties do not complete review.

Procedural status (from provided record)

  • Introduced Feb 5, 2025 by Representative Christopher Mathis (Arizona).
  • Status noted as Rule 19(a) / Re‑referred to Rules Committee and other readings/committee assignments per the provided action list.

Final note / Recommendation

Because the materials combine two different HB 2485 texts (Illinois liquor law and Arizona land‑division law), verify which state and bill you intend to track. If you want a deeper analysis (fiscal impact, stakeholder reactions, or exact statutory redline), indicate which bill (Illinois or Arizona) and I will prepare a focused, detailed brief.

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

Sign in to ask a question.