Storey County commissioners back amendment to Senate Bill 69 and instruct staff, lobbyists to seek concurrence

Storey County commissioners on an unspecified date voted unanimously to support an amendment to Senate Bill 69 and instructed county staff and lobbyists to ask the Assembly Revenue Committee to consider the bill with the proposed amendment included.

County Manager Austin Osborne told commissioners the amendment package simplifies some language, designates a lead negotiator for government services agreements (the jurisdiction with land-use authority), and reduces a previously proposed 20% government services agreement requirement in a $3.5 billion category to 10%. Osborne said the county had earlier directed staff on May 6 to take positions on SB 69 and that the new amendment preserves the bill’s primary purpose while addressing concerns raised in committee hearings.

The amendment was discussed by the county’s lobbyists, including Will Adler of SSGR, who said the amendment had been proposed during the Assembly Revenue Committee hearing and that multiple parties—including the Nevada Manufacturers Association and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED)—had signaled they would support the bill if the amendment were adopted. Adler described the remainder of the legislative process if the board adopted the amendment: submission to the Assembly Revenue Committee work session, a potential assembly floor vote and, if necessary, a simple concurrence vote in the Senate.

Commissioner Mitchell moved to formally declare support for the amendment provided by GOED for SB 69 and to instruct staff and lobbyists to move forward and ask the committee to consider SB 69 with the amendment included. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The board was presented with an exhibit containing the amendment language drawn from the draft published on NELIS; Osborne said the exhibit was intended to make the suggested changes easier to review. Commissioners were given three options: adopt the proposed amendment, reject it, or take alternative action.

The action does not itself change county code or enter the county into any contractual agreement; it directs staff and the county’s lobbyists to advance the county’s position in the legislative process. The board’s earlier direction on May 6 and committee testimony were referenced during the discussion.

The county’s lobbyist team and county staff will carry the board’s instruction to the Legislature, including seeking introduction of the amendment in the Assembly Revenue Committee work session and attempting to secure concurrence if needed.