John Shirts — Asked to take over as proofreader and agreed to do so.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum reviewed the prior meeting minutes, stated they matched his recollection, and moved to approve them. A brief follow-up confirmed the date of the previous meeting as January 14th.
Jason Monks — Identified as the sponsor of RS 32920.
Jason Monks — Introduced himself as Jason Monks from District 22.
Jason Monks — Introduced himself and began explaining the STARS program.
Jason Monks — The sponsor is addressed during committee questions.
Jason Monks — The sponsor is questioned about the rebate language.
Jason Monks — Explained that the rebate applies only to new revenue from new development and promised to research the question further.
Jason Monks — Was asked to provide rebate figures and responded to the question.
Jason Monks — Said about $5 million in sales tax had been rebated and asked whether the committee wanted totals or project-by-project information.
Jason Monks — Was asked to confirm the fiscal consequence of the bill.
Jason Monks — Explained that the projected revenue would not have existed without the project and that the state might otherwise have had to fund the infrastructure upfront.
Jason Monks — Argued that the state would not have received the sales tax absent the project and that the project would generate additional benefits.
Jason Monks — Said the proposal is a good example of growth paying for itself because the developer builds the infrastructure and only gets rebated if revenue materializes.
Jason Monks — Explained that if a project fails, the state is not out anything because the developer bears the risk.
Jason Monks — Concluded that the developer bears most of the risk and reimbursement is based on actual sales.
Jason Monks — Said he would note the question and address it later.
Jason Monks — Said he would provide more detail later and explained that highway districts and ITD plan for growth-related projects.
Jason Monks — Said the program pre-funds infrastructure and that he would check whether engineering services are covered.
Jason Monks — Was addressed by the new committee member in a lighthearted exchange.
Jason Monks — Responded that the program has existed for 20 years and he was not planning to change its implementation.
Jason Monks — Said he was only changing the program limits and would look into possible assurances or guarantees.
Jason Monks — Was asked to return to the table for the comment and debate segment.
Britt Raybould — Britt Raybould moved to introduce RS 32920 and then engaged in a sustained discussion about the bill’s fiscal implications. She asked for clarification on the fiscal note, raised concern that the proposal could reduce future tax revenues by up to $100 million, and questioned how that aligns with the principle that growth should pay for itself. She ultimately said she looked forward to learning more about the bill’s details and would support the motion, while still expressing concern about the revenue impact.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri asked for the specific language supporting the $100 million maximum and the rebate structure. In response, Representative Monks said he would do more research and provide a cleaner answer to the question.
John Gannon — John Gannon asked Representative Monks for figures on how much the Tax Commission has rebated on eligible projects, then followed up by asking for the amount rebated over the last year or two.
David Cannon — Representative Monks repeatedly addressed Chairman David Cannon in the course of the discussion, thanking him and including him alongside other representatives in brief acknowledgments.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raymond described the proposal as a public-private partnership and requested more detail on how highway districts and ITD would be involved, including at a future public hearing. He then asked whether engineering and design costs for other agencies would create additional expenses and whether those costs would be covered by the STAR program.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd is referenced in a discussion about repayment provisions, with one mention appearing to be a transcription error. The substantive point is his question about why the bill does not include language limiting repayment to actual expenditures and whether such a cap should be specified.