County directs staff to press for participation, fire-district input and alternatives while continuing negotiations on SB 69 and related economic development B—

Storey County commissioners voted to instruct county staff and retained lobbyists to represent the county's interests on SB 69, a bill addressing incentives and review procedures for large economic-development projects, and to continue active engagement on related measures including AB 77.

The board's direction—moved and seconded and passed unanimously—keeps the county's bill language intact while authorizing staff to negotiate with the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED), the Department of Taxation and other stakeholders on specific technical points. Commissioners said they will hold firm on the county's priorities while exploring whether some elements can be addressed administratively rather than by statute.

Why it matters: SB 69 includes several elements that Storey County officials say are important to protect local fiscal and public-safety interests when very large projects (data centers, large manufacturers) seek state incentives. Those elements include: (1) earlier and clearer county participation in application review; (2) a mandatory government services agreement to identify and fund local service impacts (police, fire, roads, utilities); and (3) fire-district representation in application discussions for projects with material local impacts.

County Manager Austin Osborne told the board staff is trying to balance maximum local protections with state-level concerns. "We've had conversations with GOED and the Department of Taxation," he said, and staff is exploring whether the specific auditing/notification requirement for data-center colocated equipment might be addressed administratively through state agency cooperation rather than statutory language.

Will Adler, lobbyist with Silver State Government Relations, told the commissioners the bill has generated active discussion with economic-development stakeholders and GOED. He said the county's message has been heard and that the county will present to the Senate committee as scheduled. "We took a pretty hard line, but we're getting a lot of understanding about why we brought this and what we're doing it for," Adler said.

Commissioner Mitchell emphasized that the board remains open to reasonable compromises but wants safeguards on retroactive tax adjustments. "The biggest pain point is if we have to go back to a previous fiscal year," Mitchell said; he asked staff and counsel to develop language changes to prevent retroactive fiscal-year liabilities while leaving other protections intact. Will Adler and county staff said they will draft clarifying amendments and continue discussions ahead of the committee hearing.

The board also agreed that, absent explicit direction to the contrary, the county will generally monitor and support positions taken by the Nevada Association of Counties on broader bills affecting county operations, allowing the county/managers to focus on a small set of high-priority bills for direct intervention.

No formal change to county code or tax policy was adopted at the meeting; the action was a direction to staff and lobbyists to continue negotiations and bring back amendments or recommendations as they are developed.