Richard Cheatum — Moved to approve the minutes for February 2nd and February 3rd.
Richard Cheatum — Moved to introduce RS 33317.
Richard Cheatum — His motion to introduce RS 33317 is put to a vote.
Richard Cheatum — Recognized by the chair as the next questioner.
Richard Cheatum — Asked whether the proposal could include other infrastructure such as stormwater management and sidewalks.
Richard Cheatum — Addressed by Monks during the response.
Richard Cheatum — Referenced as having asked an earlier question about the program's impacts.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum was introduced as the sponsor of House Bill 594, then identified himself as Rick Cheatum from District 28 and explained that the bill would codify a Supreme Court ruling into law so the process would be clear going forward. He stood for questions and noted there had been considerable discussion with county and city associations over the past couple of years. Later speakers thanked him for bringing the bill forward, said he had consulted with their association, and noted they had been working with him on the legislation since 2023 while waiting for the courts to decide.
Jason Monks — Jason Monks, representing District 22, introduced and explained legislation related to urban renewal districts and fire protection/ambulance district withdrawal requests, clarifying that agencies should not deny withdrawal when no outstanding bonds, contractual obligations, or other indebtedness remain and that contractual obligations must be written agreements. He asked the committee to introduce the proposal for a full hearing. The discussion then moved to his other legislation, House Bill 506 and RS 33329, where he described a development incentive program that rebates only new sales tax revenue from new development, not existing revenue, and said developers typically pay upfront for infrastructure-related costs such as traffic studies, sidewalks, and streetlights. He argued the program helps developers complete projects sooner, benefits citizens by avoiding higher taxes or fees, and has no known opposition. He also clarified that the proposal is not retroactive, applies only to new projects and developments, and still leaves the state collecting 40% of new sales tax revenue, making it a net positive for the state.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks responded to questions about the bill’s rebate provisions, explaining that rebates are limited to actual costs incurred and capped at $100 million. He said the cap was chosen because some projects could exceed $35 million without reaching $100 million, pointed to specific bill language for clarification, and later explained the distinction between the bill and the RS, noting the current law and how the proposal changes the floor from 10 to 5.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch asked whether representatives of urban renewal districts were consulted on the proposal and whether affected parties had provided input. He then followed up by asking if the bill could negatively affect an urban renewal district financially.
Steve Berch — Asks whether the 60% sales tax split is time-limited or perpetual.
Steve Berch — Clarifies he is not opposed to the STARS program, but questions whether the rebate could continue indefinitely until the cap is reached.
Steve Berch — Questions whether a successful project would eventually reach the cap if the rebate is perpetual.
Steve Berch — Says he may be misunderstanding the bill and continues questioning the cap structure.
Steve Berch — Asks whether there is both a $100 million cap and a separate infrastructure-investment cap.
Steve Berch — Questioned whether the bill would allow a windfall if a project cost less than the $100 million cap.
Steve Berch — Was addressed in the sponsor's explanation.
Steve Berch — Said he only wanted clarification and asked for one last question.
Steve Berch — Asked why the $100 million cap was chosen and whether it was based on inflation.
Steve Berch — Asked for the difference between the RS and the bill just held in committee.
Steve Berch — Asked for clarification on the difference between the RS and the bill.
Steve Berch — Was thanked after asking the clarification question.
David Cannon — Addressed by Monks as Chair during the exchange.
David Cannon — Addressed by Monks as chair during the response.
David Cannon — As chair, indicated that further questions would continue but a motion could be entertained at any time.
David Cannon — Asked the sponsor to explicitly state what action he wanted on House Bill 506 and RS 33329.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair during the exchange.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair in the response cue.
David Cannon — Chair referenced while asking questions and managing the discussion.
David Cannon — Chair addressed while moving the discussion forward.
David Cannon — Chair referenced in the exchange.
David Cannon — Chair addressed in the response.
David Cannon — States that House Bill 506 should be taken up before any motion on the RS.
David Cannon — Chair acknowledges the motion and recognizes the next question.
David Cannon — Chair addressed in the response.
David Cannon — Chair addressed in the exchange.
David Cannon — Interjected to keep discussion through the chair.
David Cannon — Was addressed by the sponsor during the explanation.
David Cannon — Chair David Cannon concluded discussion on House Bill 610 by thanking Representative Pickett and allowing him to take his seat, noting that no one had signed up to testify, stating the motion to send House Bill 610 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, calling for debate and then the vote, announcing that the motion passed and the bill would be sent to the House floor, and finally introducing the next agenda item, House Bill 594.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Charlie Shepherd questioned the math behind the fiscal note and the 60% figure, but was then told his question was not on the correct RS and that he would need to wait for his chance to address it.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Charlie Shepherd is recognized to ask a question and then follows up on the mechanics of the proposal, specifically how the $100 million cap interacts with the 60% rebate and how the rebate could exceed $60 million.
Charlie Shepherd — Referenced in a lighthearted correction about being on the wrong bill.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having asked a question about whether additional costs are being borne by ITD or ACHD.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having asked an earlier question about the program's impacts.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon asked a series of follow-up questions about the proposal’s practical impact, including whether it would apply to current development projects, how growth and increased revenue might affect the FY27 deficit, and what estimates exist for developer participation and potential sales tax revenue implications.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri was identified as the next questioner and then asked whether the proposal would allow or force highway districts to deal with impacts outside their normal purview beyond impact fees. A later reference to him continues the same line of questioning about whether the tool would require districts to address impacts beyond their immediate authority.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri was recognized to ask a follow-up question about the bill, specifically whether the exemption would still apply if a homeowner rents out the property while away and earns income from it.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri asked whether the change would require a software update or manual calculations. The response clarified that no software change is needed.
Jeff Cornilles — Jeff Cornilles is mentioned in two closely spaced references within the same portion of the meeting, with no substantive discussion attached to either mention.