Bill
HB 2543
Arizona version: Protects agricultural lessees on leased public lands by requiring compensation and new lease terms when solar/wind projects reduce operation size. Illinois versio
Note on source material: The materials provided appear to include two different HB 2543 texts from different jurisdictions. One is an Arizona measure (sponsored by Rep. Lupe Diaz) that would add protections for agricultural lessees when solar or wind projects are built on leased public lands. The other is an Illinois measure (sponsored by Rep. Joe C. Sosnowski) titled the “Taxpayer Empowerment Law” that would authorize voter referenda to reduce a taxing district’s aggregate extension (property tax extension). Both summaries are given below.
Purpose
- Add protections for agricultural lessees of state or federal lands when solar or wind energy projects are constructed on lands that reduce the size of an agricultural operation.
Key provisions
- Amends Title 44 (adds A.R.S. § 44-1765) and renames the article heading from “SOLAR ENERGY DEVICES” to “SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY DEVICES.”
- Prohibits an in-state business (contractor/subcontractor) from constructing a solar or wind energy project that reduces the size of an agricultural lessee’s operation unless the business compensates the lessee for:
1. Loss of profits;
2. The value of executed conservation measures;
3. Loss in value of the agricultural operation;
4. Costs to relocate the agricultural operation;
5. Costs to mitigate losses caused by the reduction.
- Requires lessees to provide “credible evidence” certifying these amounts before compensation is paid.
- Requires the business to secure a new lease of equal or greater value for the agricultural lessee.
- Exemption: no compensation required if the project is constructed so the lessee can continue the current agricultural operation.
- Defines “agricultural lessee” to mean lessees of state lands (Title 37, Ch. 2, Art. 4) or federal lands leased for agricultural purposes.
Who is affected
- Renewable energy developers/contractors working on state or federally leased agricultural lands, and agricultural lessees whose leased acreage would be reduced.
Potential impacts
- Increases costs and conditions for siting solar or wind projects on leased public agricultural lands; strengthens protection/compensation rights for lessees; may encourage project designs that avoid reducing active agricultural operations.
Purpose
- Add a new Division (5.2) to Article 18 of the Property Tax Code authorizing citizen-initiated referenda to reduce a taxing district’s annual aggregate extension (i.e., the district’s total property tax extension).
Key provisions
- Two referendum types:
- Advisory (non-binding): initiated by petition signed by registered voters equal to ≥1% but <5% of votes cast in the taxing district in the preceding general election. Question placed on next regularly scheduled general or consolidated election (not primary).
- Binding: initiated by petition signed by registered voters equal to ≥5% of prior general election turnout. If a majority of votes on the binding question are “Yes,” the taxing district’s aggregate extension is reduced by the specified amount (up to 10% less than the prior year’s extension) for the coming levy year.
- Petition circulation: may be circulated no earlier than 12 months before filing; filing, validation, and certification follow Election Code procedures; Election authorities must submit certified questions to voters.
- Ballot language: substantially provided in the bill; votes recorded “Yes” or “No.”
- Definitions: “aggregate extension” = annual corporate extension plus special purpose extensions made annually; “taxing district” as in Section 1‑150.
- Preemption and conflicts: expressly limits home rule taxing power (Article VII, §6(g) of the Illinois Constitution) and states that this Section controls over conflicting state laws, including the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law and the Election Code.
- Effective date: immediate upon becoming law.
Who is affected
- Taxing districts (municipalities, school districts, special districts), local budgets/revenues, and voters within those districts.
Potential impacts
- Empowers voters to force local reductions in property tax extensions (up to 10%), which could reduce revenues for local services if binding referenda succeed.
- Creates an organized petition/election pathway for taxpayer-driven limits; may increase election administration workload and create legal questions about interplay with existing tax-limiting laws and home rule authority.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
