Senate committee hears Story County-backed SB 69 to add local input on largest tax abatements

Acting Chair (Senate Committee on Revenue and Economic Development) opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 69, a Story County-sponsored measure that would add local governments and fire districts into the process for considering the state's two largest tax-abatement categories.

The bill's primary proponents — Austin Osborne, Story County manager; Jay Carmona, Story County commissioner; and Jeremy Loncar, chief of the Story County Fire Protection District — told the committee the measure is aimed at ensuring local jurisdictions can address the operational and public-safety costs produced by very large, largely tax‑abated manufacturing or industrial facilities.

"This bill is about helping counties, it's about helping cities, and it's about helping fire districts respond to impacts that are caused by huge factories that are tax abated," said Austin Osborne, Story County manager, during the opening presentation. Osborne and other presenters said SB 69 would apply only to the state programs that grant abatements for projects with roughly $1 billion and $3.5 billion in qualifying investment.

The Story County delegation described a decade of rapid industrial growth around the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center — including the original Tesla facility, a later Tesla project and a Redwood Materials site — and said the county has negotiated government services agreements with some companies but lacks a consistent way to ensure local emergency services and infrastructure are funded when projects are 100% property-tax abated. "We want to go to the table with GOED and say, 'we've got unique situations in our county, can we please talk?'" Osborne said.

Chief Jeremy Loncar said fire districts require a seat at those conversations because the facilities can be "complex, high‑risk environments that require specialized training, additional personnel, and specialized apparatus." Loncar added that existing statute (as written) does not explicitly include fire districts when abatements are negotiated and that Story County's fire district has been left without a guaranteed mechanism to offset ongoing operational impacts.

Proponents told the committee they have prepared a conceptual amendment that would remove a proposed temporary local seat on the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) board and would strip a separate section on data‑center auditing; proponents said they now believe confidentiality and auditing concerns can be handled administratively rather than by statute.

Several local and statewide public‑safety and county groups voiced support. Todd Inglesby, president of Professional Firefighters Nevada, said the union supports the bill because it would help ensure responders have the equipment and manpower needed to protect people and investments. Marilyn Kirkpatrick, who described her legislative role in earlier statewide abatement reforms, urged the committee to remember the original intent of the 2014 reforms was to include local governments in economic-development decisions.

Opponents included regional economic-development organizations and business groups, who said the measure risks creating regulatory uncertainty for companies evaluating Nevada. Amber Stidham of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance and representatives of multiple chambers of commerce and manufacturing groups warned that mandated cost‑sharing or disclosure requirements could deter investment and colliding nondisclosure or proprietary obligations could be difficult to reconcile. Several opponents welcomed the proposed amendments removing data-center provisions but urged further negotiation.

Committee members asked detailed questions about why the change is needed if past agreements with major companies have generally been negotiated successfully, how the 15‑day notice process currently in statute functions in practice, and whether the proposal would disincentivize future investments. Story County witnesses said their request is built on "lessons learned" over the last decade and on situations in which local contracts or long‑standing development agreements limit counties' ability to require special use permits, impact fees or other local conditions.

No formal vote was taken in committee. Presenters and stakeholders told the committee they plan to continue negotiations on the amendment language, especially concerning section 4 of the bill (notifications) and effective dates for abatements; proponents said the conceptual amendment in the record removes the data‑center auditing section and the temporary GOED board seat. The hearing concluded with requests for follow‑up conversations between county officials, GOED, the Department of Taxation and affected regional partners.