Senate Bill 23‑90 (referred to as 2,390 during the hearing) — a proposal to create a Rural Catalyst Grant program and a Rural Catalyst Committee — was discussed in detail but not acted on. Committee members reviewed amendments proposed by Representative Moshenbacher, debated eligible population thresholds and administrative expense limits, and set the bill aside to allow redrafting and review; the committee will revisit the bill next Thursday.

Representative Moshenbacher described the draft amendments as focusing the program on smaller communities, tightening eligibility, and adding a dollar‑for‑dollar local match requirement in parts of the proposal. Moshenbacher said he reduced the population threshold in the draft from 8,500 to 4,500 to prioritize the very smallest communities and removed arts and culture as an eligible use in some sections to concentrate resources on projects “critical to the vitality of rural communities,” such as grocery stores and medical facilities.

Committee members raised several implementation questions: whether governor or commissioner appointees should be designated members or their designees; whether administrative and travel/per diem expenses should be capped (a hard cap of 10% was proposed analogous to language discussed for another bill); how to avoid duplication with other state programs (Operation Prairie Dog, renaissance zones) and whether the bill’s language duplicated expense provisions across sections. Matt Purdue, who identified himself as representing a stakeholder organization in the room, explained the bill’s intent to support quality‑of‑life and main‑street projects and said the Rural Catalyst program is meant to complement, not duplicate, existing programs.

Members suggested several drafting changes: clarifying the population data source (census or current estimates), tightening who pays committee member per diem, and consolidating or removing duplicate expense language. Representative Warrie and others urged cleaning the expense language and working with staff. The chair proposed putting the bill aside until Thursday to allow the sponsor and legislative staff to produce cleaned amendment language; the committee agreed and did not take a formal vote on the bill at the hearing. Senate Bill 20‑69 was also held until Thursday.