The Assembly Committee on Revenue amended and advanced Senate Bill 69 after discussion of proposed amendments from the Governor's Office of Economic Development and clarifying testimony from Story County representatives.

In staff remarks, Michael Nakamoto said SB69 "requires the lead participant in large scale economic development projects that are located in an economic diversification district to enter into agreements with local governments to help cover the cost of public services and infrastructure if requested." The bill also expands certain confidentiality provisions for related communications and mandates local government acknowledgment of applications, the staff summary said.

An amendment submitted by the Governor's Office of Economic Development would add new subsections to statutory sections referenced in the work session materials and designate that the municipality with land-use planning authority over the physical location of a project would serve as the lead negotiator representing the governing body of any city, county or fire protection district requiring an agreement under the bill. The amendment would also delete certain paragraphs from the definition of local government services and infrastructure in the affected sections; the office attached its amendment to the work session document, staff said.

Members sought clarification about language that uses the phrase "which do not exceed" and whether the text required applying two alternatives or selecting the lesser alternative. Will Adler, representing Story County, said for the record that the phrase should be read as a choice of "the lesser of the two choices" rather than both. Adler said the amendment adopted language from the Governor's Office clarifying that the cap on government services agreements (GSAs) in the identified categories would be 10 percent. "Which do not exceed also could be clarified as the lesser of the 2 choices," Adler said. Stephen Wood of the Governor's Office of Economic Development agreed: "That is our intent," he said, and added that if LCB Legal required different drafting to capture the intent, the office was amenable.

Austin Osborne, Story County manager, confirmed from experience that a negotiated GSA would be capped at 10 percent and that the language was intended to allow negotiation for a lesser amount. Committee members thanked negotiators for their work; Assembly member O'Neil moved to amend and do pass SB69, Assembly member Gray seconded. The committee recorded one no vote from Assembly member Gallant; the motion carried. Chair Backus assigned the floor statement to Assembly member O'Neil.

The work session record shows substantive negotiation over who would lead talks for local governments and how to cap or calculate GSAs. The amendment and staff summary are attached to the committee documents; committee members asked staff and county representatives to verify that drafting captured the intended "lesser of" treatment for the cap and noted willingness by GOED to accept drafting changes from LCB Legal if needed.