Jason Monks — Introduces House Bill 506 and RS 33329 and explains the difference between them.
Jason Monks — Explained that the STARS program is primarily for ITD projects and clarified why he distinguishes ITD from highway districts.
Jason Monks — Continued explaining how major roads in the Treasure Valley are treated and how development-related infrastructure is typically required.
Jason Monks — Explained that the STARS program lets developers front infrastructure costs and recover a rebate from new sales tax revenue.
Jason Monks — Clarified that the rebate comes only from new revenue and applies to infrastructure costs, not buildings.
Jason Monks — Answered that the infrastructure is typically required through the city agreement and referenced a prior question from Representative Raymond.
Jason Monks — Explained that developers usually bear the upfront costs, including traffic studies, when bringing projects to ITD or highway districts.
Jason Monks — Argued the program helps developers avoid long delays tied to long-range transportation plans.
Jason Monks — Said the program benefits developers and citizens and noted no known opposition.
Jason Monks — Stated that he is aware of no opposition and that several groups support the legislation.
Jason Monks — Responded that sidewalks and other infrastructure could be included in the package.
Jason Monks — Added that streetlights and other infrastructure could be included and noted the high cost of streetlights.
Jason Monks — Explained that STARS can encourage developers to build beyond the immediate impact area because they can recover costs.
Jason Monks — Continued praising the program and its broader infrastructure benefits.
Jason Monks — The chair addressed him directly while explaining that a motion could be entertained at any time.
Jason Monks — Explained that HB 506 should be held in committee while the new RS is introduced with a recommendation to send it to second reading.
Jason Monks — Said testimony on HB 506 would likely not change much and clarified the sponsor's position.
Jason Monks — Clarified that the proposal would apply to projects being planned now, but not to projects already started and constructed.
Jason Monks — Addressed by Representative Gannon regarding fiscal impact and potential revenue effects.
Jason Monks — Responded that the program applies only to new projects and does not divert existing revenue.
Jason Monks — Explained that the program returns only a portion of new sales tax revenue to the developer and leaves 40% with the state, describing it as a net positive for the state.
Jason Monks — Was being questioned about the scope of the program and whether it affects impacts outside the normal fee structure.
Jason Monks — Explained that the program is a voluntary tool and that projects can have impacts beyond the immediate area.
Jason Monks — Said the program is voluntary, has been used only a few times, and is generally for larger projects with agreed-upon infrastructure work.
Jason Monks — Explained that developers may want to invest in better access and infrastructure to attract customers.
Jason Monks — Said the tool could help developers work with highway districts and the transportation department to build more infrastructure and get reimbursed.
Jason Monks — Was asked to explain the rebate calculation.
Jason Monks — Explained that the 60% rebate applies to new sales tax generated, not to total investment, until the investment is recovered.
Jason Monks — Said the fiscal note can still be clarified before the bill leaves the floor.
Jason Monks — Was the sponsor being questioned further after the motion.
Jason Monks — Said there is no time limit, but argued that developers would not wait decades to recover their investment and cited a Costco project as an example.
Jason Monks — Was asked to respond to the question about the cap and time frame.
Jason Monks — Disagreed that a successful project would necessarily keep spending until it reaches the cap, arguing there is no incentive to spend more than necessary.
Jason Monks — Emphasized that the rebate applies only to required infrastructure, not building costs or frivolous spending.
Jason Monks — Argued that few developers would spend $100 million and noted inflation has increased infrastructure costs significantly.
Jason Monks — Explains that inflation and construction costs have increased, and that the committee is trying to stay ahead of larger future projects.
Jason Monks — Argues that raising the cap would not necessarily cause developers to use the full amount and compares the rebate to impact fees.
Jason Monks — Is asked to clarify whether there is a second cap tied to actual infrastructure costs.
Jason Monks — Clarifies that the rebate is limited to actual costs expended and cannot exceed the cap or the amount spent.
Jason Monks — The chair directs comments through the chair and asks Representative Birch whether he has further follow-up.
Jason Monks — Explains that the higher cap was chosen because some projects exceed $35 million and $100 million seemed reasonable.
Jason Monks — Cites the bill language and explains that the State Tax Commission is involved in approval.
Jason Monks — Reads the bill language and explains that the rebate is limited to the lesser of the certified amount or the $100 million cap.
Jason Monks — The chair thanks Representative Monks and asks him to join at the desk for public testimony.
Jason Monks — Clarifies that current law is $6 million, House Bill 506 raised it to $10 million, and the RS drops it to $5 million.
Jason Monks — States that the only difference between the bill and the RS is the floor amount.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having asked about whether additional costs are borne by ITD, ACHD, or other highway districts.
Jerald Raymond — Recognized as asking a question; likely a transcription error for Representative Gannon.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having asked an earlier question about the program's scope.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatham was recognized to question the sponsor and asked whether the bill’s infrastructure provisions could be expanded beyond highways to include other development-related needs such as stormwater management and sidewalks.