Negotiators agree to three edits to SB9, leave cameras and drone date unresolved

House and Senate conference negotiators met to reconcile differences over Senate Bill 9, reaching agreement on three non‑drone edits while leaving two drone‑related items unresolved.

The conferees agreed to three changes proposed by the Senate: (1) add a governor sign‑off process for certain land acquisitions described in the bill, (2) remove language that described the attorney general's role as "policy and procedures" and instead treat rulemaking authority consistent with the attorney general's rule and regulation powers, and (3) replace the bill's existing "foreign entity" phrasing with a definition tying eligibility to whether a company is domiciled outside the United States. Those items were described by negotiators as part of the Senate's offer and accepted for the conference report.

Negotiators did not reach agreement on two other items that had been offered by the Senate. The House declined to adopt new language that would have added cameras to the acquisition provisions alongside drones, saying the cameras provision should be studied in a separate infrastructure bill next session. The parties also did not accept a proposed change to the procurement effective date for drone and camera acquisitions; the House objected to the date change offered by the Senate.

Conference members discussed several technical clarifications in the bill. Delegates and staff pointed to section 12 (page 10, line 42) as providing an exemption process for otherwise prohibited acquisitions: a governmental agency may complete an acquisition if (1) there is no other reasonable means to obtain the critical component, (2) the acquisition is approved by the Secretary of Administration after consultation with the Adjutant General, and (3) failure to acquire the component would create a greater risk to safety and security than the acquisition. Members also noted subsection D on page 11 provides that the prohibition does not apply to contractor agreements entered into before July 1, 2025.

Committee members debated a related provision in new section 5 that would bar any "foreign principal" from receiving direct benefits related to economic development programs. Staff advised that the language in that section is broad: it would prohibit direct benefits regardless of the form of benefit and does not include explicit grandfathering language tied to an effective date. Staff enumerated the types of economic incentives covered as including Secretary of Commerce tax credits, property tax exemptions, job creation funds and similar economic development incentives.

Members also discussed the practical reach of a separate geographic limit referenced in committee discussion, described by some as a 100‑mile radius; negotiators said the 100‑mile choice followed recommendations ranging from 80 to 250 miles provided by federal and fusion‑center officials and was considered a compromise position.

Because the parties did not resolve the camera language and the procurement date, the conferees asked staff to prepare a conference committee report reflecting the agreed‑to provisions and the remaining open issues for further negotiation later the same afternoon.

Ending: The committee recessed to permit caucus meetings and further discussions; negotiators said they would reconvene to continue conferring on the unresolved camera and date items and to complete the conference report.