[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6568285,"mediaKeyId","3204871-724498b191e9f382448ee10532e209c1","parentId",3204871,"title","Storey County pushes SB69 to require local government services talks, add fire districts to abatement negotiations","audioSeconds",3533,"startMs",85000,"endMs",3618000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204871-724498b191e9f382448ee10532e209c1&start=85&end=3618","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204871-724498b191e9f382448ee10532e209c1/thumbnail_85000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568285/Nevada/Storey-County-pushes-SB69-to-require-local-government-services-talks-add-fire-districts-to-abatement-negotiations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568285-cf820571b893107fb83ef44a14ccda04/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607764&Signature=T~gme6YDfZTRvmET1PX7Fi4Fp5ApMDVtmFgLlglp7Nw6EcTEAq-JsAg6nY-tldTsOO2xjeGg81TGUSpLnhlc7j6WGC0d9O12eoQoqwTRRgt~KBf0U1I6UFwvWffjatAgltpGVzh7lQYbcrNwHfmfW89Ue0kmUzfCc1RKdsymv3SVyunB4qT-HIs2lxZxvMowJoZlYtzDUR~l8FNRAdV9RGNro71pOlKVnydP-zgT~3gxWZWxcz8sBy-JkR1nJU3azPrxIbSipTAw4UmLpwOAgmJPXx7gvLqvY4q4T6zu7J3c08nBsEZqrEGYXZY98325BrQW6WbFMLJIKncaT7P9tA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-05-07T12:57:26Z","article","Storey County officials told the Assembly Committee on Revenue on the evening they presented Senate Bill 69 that the bill would require earlier notification to local jurisdictions and allow local governments — including fire protection districts — to negotiate government services agreements to offset local costs created by very large tax‑abatement projects.

\"They change your life. They change the culture of your county,\" said Austin Osborne, Storey County manager, describing the county’s decade of experience hosting gigafactories and the local service needs that followed. \"This bill simply amends the existing structure. It brings local stakeholders to the table while GOED works through its processes.\"

The bill targets two large abatement categories in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) tied to projects with roughly $1,000,000,000 and $3,500,000,000 capital investments. Supporters described past negotiations with private companies that produced government services agreements (GSAs) to fund local needs — for example, Storey officials said the county negotiated roughly $26,000,000 in services to respond to its first Tesla gigafactory over a 10‑year abatement period, and cited GSA amounts of about $12 million for earlier projects.

Supporters said SB69 (as amended during bill development) would: require GOED to notify local jurisdictions when an abatement application is received; give a jurisdiction 15 days to request negotiation of a GSA and be read into nondisclosure agreements; allow negotiations to proceed concurrently with GOED’s abatement process; and explicitly permit fire protection districts to participate in negotiations. \"We were the only fire protection district in the state of Nevada that has dealt with this, yet we were not awarded the same rights that a city or a county fire department received,\" said Jeremy Longcar, chief of the Storey County Fire Protection District. Longcar told committee members the district has borne costs responding to industrial incidents and has had difficulty securing funds or equipment without being able to negotiate GSAs.

Committee members pressed presenters on the bill’s caps and guardrails. Storey County officials said the bill includes caps that limit recoverable local costs to either a percentage cap (10% for the $1 billion category, 20% for the $3.5 billion category) or to demonstrable, itemized costs — whichever yields less. \"Our original bill did not have those caps,\" Storey County manager Austin Osborne said. He said the caps were added as guardrails after stakeholder requests and that the numeric limits were informed by Storey County’s real‑world GSA experience.

Several county, city and business groups testified in opposition or urged amendment. Stephen Wood, director of strategy and public policy for the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED), said GOED opposed SB69 in its current form and that GOED had proposed an amendment the sponsors had not adopted at the hearing. Wood told the committee that GOED’s draft would reduce the 20% cap to 10% for the $3.5 billion abatement example and estimated that using the local portion only would produce a lower dollar example (roughly $33 million vs. $66 million in the full‑amount scenario he cited). Wood said GOED would support the bill if the parties accepted its amendment.

Local governments and business groups raised concerns that the bill’s language could be overly prescriptive or could deter large projects. The Nevada League of Cities and multiple municipal chambers said the bill could reduce local flexibility to tailor agreements. The Vegas Chamber and other statewide business groups urged the committee to accept GOED’s compromise amendment; several witnesses said they would change to neutral if the GOED amendment were accepted.

Supporters argued SB69 increases certainty and speed by allowing local concerns to be addressed while the abatement application is processed rather than after GOED has largely completed its review. \"This actually gives more certainty and speed,\" Storey County Commissioner Clay Mitchell told the committee, saying the local process can run concurrently with GOED review and that jurisdictional opt‑in remains voluntary.

The committee did not take a vote on SB69 at the hearing. The record shows substantial stakeholder engagement but unresolved differences: proponents emphasized inclusion of fire districts and early notification, while GOED, city associations and several business groups urged the sponsors to accept GOED’s amendment to narrow caps and other language. The hearing closed without final action and committee members indicated they expected additional conversation between sponsors and GOED.

Votes at this hearing: none recorded.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/6/2025 - Assembly Committee on Revenue","oneSentenceSummary","Storey County officials told the Assembly Committee on Revenue they sponsored Senate Bill 69 to require earlier notification and to allow local jurisdictions — including fire protection districts — to negotiate government services agreements to offset local costs from very large tax‑abated projects.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6568280,"Senate Bill 196 would allow heavy‑equipment rental firms to add a disclosed recovery fee to offset tangible property tax",1269,3650000,4919000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204871-724498b191e9f382448ee10532e209c1&start=3650&end=4919","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204871-724498b191e9f382448ee10532e209c1/thumbnail_3650000.jpg","/articles/6568280/Nevada/Senate-Bill-196-would-allow-heavyequipment-rental-firms-to-add-a-disclosed-recovery-fee-to-offset-tangible-property-tax","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568280-d4fc28fb4f36c32a6e5915312df3997f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607764&Signature=NFEqQNxkCRTJJOfndzB-5K2GY3NZlZ1w~Dib3egSMFXDOVonwpqZJBgOuHsJ~DHHQsJEUVBn3XzygTNMo0tGv0J0yV~v3VqR8lktFgMtFSiRuOaQHnW~uygv19d0GoyoAMfnpN70DcG18N8f~kCiEOyhNp-ypjxZDUrfdeuv9n56d0c3Wxzyj48BEtzj0Y~VqYgLOITD1Fy0kzXtUPllmBuqOh~r8NvPyvoQUYTptq9vPhRQ~H2TzcEOInNTZSbGRWBuEhfAD~yztlzh14z2UDbsPoEY5xo3QOnCbce-H2pQy12Z4mTszLbELhPtNYWpuaSk6oKCTP9XJs~xrdjgcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 196, presented by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, would authorize certain heavy‑equipment rental companies to charge a recovery fee of up to 2% on rental revenues to offset the year’s tangible personal property tax liability. Cannizzaro and a consulting analyst said the measure is voluntary, narrowly targeted, and intended to create a transparent, auditable mechanism that many other states already allow.

\"Nevada assesses a full year of tangible personal property tax on any piece of heavy equipment that is in the state on July 1 of a given year,\" Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro told the committee. \"The vast majority of other states have moved to various forms of taxation or fees that are less onerous on businesses.\"

Brian Gordon, principal at Applied Analysis, said the bill would apply only to companies in specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories that predominantly rent heavy equipment on a short‑term basis. He said participation is optional and the statute would require rental companies that charge the recovery fee to hold the funds in a separate account and use them only to offset their personal property tax liabilities; the Nevada Department of Taxation could audit compliance.

\"This is permissive. It is not mandated,\" Gordon said. \"Government agencies would not incur any of the recovery fees.\"

Industry trade groups and rental companies supported the bill. Representatives of the American Rental Association, United Rentals, and the American Rental Association’s members cited Nevada’s trade shows and the importance of keeping equipment in state. The Vegas Chamber said the bill is business‑friendly and expressed support. The Nevada Assessors Association testified neutral; Story County assessor Jana Seddon said assessors’ only question was why the language appears in the particular NRS chapter selected but otherwise raised no substantive objection.

Proponents said the recovery fee aims to reduce the incentive for operators to move equipment across state lines simply to avoid a July 1 tax assessment and to bring Nevada in line with roughly nine other states that allow similar mechanisms. Cannizzaro said the fee would be transparent to customers and subject to reporting and audit so that funds cannot be diverted to other corporate purposes.

No formal committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the bill drew supportive testimony from rental industry groups and neutral testimony from assessors. Committee members asked technical questions about account interest and timing of payments; witnesses said assessors’ normal July 1 assessment cycle would not change and the recovery fee would simply provide a means for rental companies to recover the tax they pay.

Votes at this hearing: none recorded.

","Senate Bill 196 would permit certain heavy‑equipment rental companies to add a disclosed recovery fee of up to 2% on customer invoices to offset the companies’ tangible personal property tax assessed on July 1 each year; participation would be voluntary and restricted to defined NAICS categories.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Storey County pushes SB69 to require local government services talks, add fire districts to abatement negotiations

Senate Bill 196 would allow heavy‑equipment rental firms to add a disclosed recovery fee to offset tangible property tax