Bill
SB 1178
Arizona, Illinois, and Hawaii SB 1178 proposals each target distinct reforms: evictions and tenant protections in AZ, brownfield/grayfield tax incentives in IL, and a permanent Haw
Note: The provided text appears to aggregate several distinct bills that share the identifier “SB 1178” but come from different states and address different topics (Arizona, Illinois, and Hawaii). The summary below separates and summarizes each bill/version to avoid conflation.
Status: Introduced Feb 7, 2025; Rule 3‑9(a) / Re‑referred to Assignments
Purpose and intent
- Make targeted changes to Arizona landlord‑tenant law governing judgments in forcible detainer (eviction) actions, prohibited rental‑agreement provisions, and landlord remedies for tenant noncompliance.
Key provisions
- Judgment/proration of rent (A.R.S. § 12‑1178): Unpaid rent awarded in eviction judgments must be limited to the tenant’s actual possession period and calculated on a prorated basis; landlords may not automatically recover the entire periodic rent for the whole rental period unless the tenant actually occupied the premises for that full period. Court judgments must not display tenants’ Social Security numbers.
- Writ of restitution/criminal trespass (A.R.S. § 12‑1178): Reiterates five‑day delay before writ issuance; establishes that a tenant who is lawfully served with a writ and then remains or returns without permission commits third‑degree criminal trespass; courts must notify defendants of this.
- Prohibited rental‑agreement provisions (A.R.S. § 33‑1315): Rental agreements may not (1) require tenants to waive statutory rights; (2) impose late fees greater than $50 per period or 5% of the unpaid periodic rent, whichever is greater; (3) require tenants to indemnify or limit landlord liability; or (4) penalize tenants for summoning emergency assistance. Violations are unenforceable and landlords who knowingly use such provisions may be liable for actual damages and up to two months’ rent.
- Noncompliance/eviction notices (A.R.S. § 33‑1368): Clarifies notice periods for material noncompliance (generally 10 days; 5 days if health/safety is materially affected), defines “material falsification” on applications (e.g., false info on occupants, income, criminal history), and addresses repeat noncompliance and certain irreparable breaches (truncated in source).
Who is affected
- Tenants and landlords in Arizona: affects eviction remedies, recoverable rent, permissible lease terms, and notice procedures.
Procedural/timeline notes
- Introduced and pending assignment; text indicates sponsorship by Senators Ortiz and Alston and Representative Sandoval.
Status: Introduced Jan 24, 2025; Referred to Assignments; companion: HB 975
Purpose and intent
- Create tax incentives to spur redevelopment of brownfields (contaminated sites) and grayfields (commercial properties vacant ≥12 months, including malls).
Key provisions
- Tax credit (35 ILCS 5/246): For taxable years ending 12/31/2025 through 12/31/2028, developers may receive:
- Brownfields: 10% credit on up to $1,000,000 of rehabilitation costs incurred after remediation (max $100,000 per project).
- Grayfields: 5% credit on up to $1,000,000 of rehabilitation costs (max $50,000 per project).
- Aggregate cap: Department may not issue more than $20,000,000 in credits for the program period.
- Administration: Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity determines qualifying projects using criteria (investment amount, jobs/housing units created, community impact, cost‑efficiency) and gives enhanced consideration to projects that include middle‑income housing.
- Payment/transferability: If a municipality or county is the developer, credit is awarded as a General Revenue Fund grant. Credits cannot reduce liability below zero; excess credits carry forward up to 5 years; pass‑through for partnerships/S‑corps; credits transferable within 5 years.
- Sales/use tax exemption: Amends Use Tax and related acts to exempt tangible personal property purchased by certified developers and used to rehabilitate brownfield/grayfield property.
Who is affected
- For‑profit and nonprofit developers, municipalities/counties, land banks, and communities seeking redevelopment of contaminated or vacant commercial properties.
Procedural/timeline notes
- Requires Department rulemaking; effective immediately per text. Referred to Revenue/Assignments.
Status: Drafted as a follow‑on to Act 185 (pilot); contains appropriation language (dates/actions in source mixed)
Purpose and intent
- Permanently establish and fund a statewide program to incentivize land management practices that increase soil health and carbon sequestration, continuing a pilot established under Act 185 (SLH 2022).
Key provisions
- Establishes the Hawaii Carbon Smart Land Management Assistance Program within the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
- Program activities:
- Administer incentive contracts with landowners/lessees for eligible practices that increase sequestration.
- Phase I activities (ready for deployment): reforestation, windbreaks, conservation tillage, improved forages, invasive species control, nutrient management, crop rotations/cover crops, manure management, rotational grazing, compost/biochar, etc.
- Phase II activities (require further technical work): perennial biofuels, methane capture, improved forest management, conservation easements, others.
- Incentive contracts: 1–30 years, compensation rates correlate with term; monitoring and verification protocols required; priority to cost‑effective projects with co‑benefits (food security, watershed protection, job creation).
- Appropriation: Source indicates an appropriation of $2,000,000 from general revenues (text truncated).
Who is affected
- Private landowners and lessees, farmers, ranchers, foresters, conservation organizations, and communities in Hawaii.
Procedural/timeline notes
- Would permanently replace a pilot program due to sunset (June 30, 2025 as noted in the findings) and requires rulemaking and interagency coordination. Source shows legislative actions including readings and committee referrals; appropriation details would be required for implementation.
If you want, I can:
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison showing which provisions would most directly affect tenants/developers/landowners; or
- Extract and summarize any truncated sections if you can provide the missing text.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
