Amends existing law to revise the composition of the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board and to provide that any grant award process shall be conducted by an independent third party.
House Bill 299 amends Idaho law governing the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board. The bill revises the board’s membership structure by specifying legislative, nonvoting industry, and gubernatorial appointees, and it preserves the board’s role within the Department of Commerce in developing and administering the statewide broadband plan. It also authorizes the board, at its discretion, to have broadband grant award grading and scoring performed by an independent third party, which would then provide recommendations to the board.
The bill continues the board’s authority to structure, prioritize, and distribute grants from the Idaho broadband fund to areas most in need, and it requires state agencies to cooperate by providing research, information, and studies relevant to the broadband plan. It also keeps existing procedures for filing, publishing, revising, and implementing the statewide broadband plan, including a process for state agencies to petition for revisions and for the board to respond within three months. The act is declared an emergency measure and takes effect July 1, 2025.
This bill amends Section 67-4761 of the Idaho Code, changing the statutory composition and operating procedures of the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board. Its practical effect is to formalize a broader mix of legislative, public, and industry representation on the board and to allow outside, independent scoring of broadband grant applications or awards when the board chooses. The bill does not create a new program, but it alters how broadband planning and grant recommendations are evaluated and administered under Idaho’s broadband funding framework.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House unanimously 70-0 and the Senate with strong support, 28-2, suggesting general agreement with the changes to broadband governance and grant review procedures. The lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote totals indicate the measure was not highly controversial overall.
The main point of potential contention is the shift to allowing an independent third party to grade and score grant awards, which may raise questions about oversight, transparency, and how much discretion the advisory board should retain. Another possible issue is the board’s composition, since the bill adjusts the mix of legislative, public, and industry members involved in broadband planning. Despite these structural changes, the recorded votes show little opposition, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate and none in the House.