Barbara Ehardt — As Chair, she opened the meeting, called for approval of the minutes, and introduced the first RS.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt is repeatedly addressed as Madam Chair/Chairman and thanked for presiding, reflecting a continuous sequence of remarks directed to her in her role as the meeting chair.
Bruce Skaug — He was introduced as the sponsor and began explaining RS 32949, which would add rats to the list of pests.
Bruce Skaug — He explained the RS only adds rats to the pest list and does not change authorities or substantive law.
Bruce Skaug — He continued his presentation and asked the committee to introduce the bill.
Bruce Skaug — He was identified as the next sponsor to introduce RS 32963C1.
Bruce Skaug — He introduced RS 32963C1 and described it as expanding public comment in public meetings, excluding the legislature.
Bruce Skaug — He was asked to respond to Representative Erickson's question.
Bruce Skaug — He clarified that the bill would include all governing bodies and require a public comment section.
Bruce Skaug — He questioned where the bill mentions a ballot and responded to a hypothetical concern.
Bruce Skaug — He explained that the bill was prompted by a person from East Idaho who could not speak openly at a governing body meeting.
Bruce Skaug — He was asked to make a motion to introduce RS 32963C1.
Bruce Skaug — The chair apologizes for not allowing Representative Bruce Skaug to take a seat after his presentation.
Bruce Skaug — His bill about rats was referenced as a possible cost concern for the state.
Bruce Skaug — Explained Idaho's recidivism counting rules and argued the real rate is higher; suggested keeping offenders in jail can prevent reoffending.
Bruce Skaug — His comment on recidivism was referenced.
Elaine Price — Elaine Price moved to introduce RS 32949, then followed up with a comment and questions about the bill’s language. She suggested clarifying broad terms such as “governing body,” asked what prompted the legislation and whether a particular government body was driving the concern, and said she was not opposed to introduction but wanted additional review because of concerns about the bill’s broad language.
Elaine Price — Elaine Price asked where in the state budget money for local governments is shown, essentially repeating and clarifying the same question about where the state sends money to local governments.
Joe Alfieri — He joked that he was excited by the word 'pests' and thought the bill would outlaw pests generally.
Marco Erickson — He asked whether the bill would affect central committees and their work as elected officials in their local community.
Marco Erickson — He sought clarification about party central committees and closed ballots.
Marco Erickson — He was described as posing a hypothetical based on something that had happened.
Marco Erickson — The chair said they might return to his question if clarification is needed.
Marco Erickson — The chair asked whether the clarification answered his question.
Marco Erickson — The chair asks if there are any other comments from the committee.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Rasor explained that precinct committeemen are not officials or a governing body and therefore would not be affected by the bill. That earlier point was then referenced as something the bill’s language should make very clear it excludes.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch supported the motion and noted that, if a hearing is held, it should focus on the specific concerns at issue and not lead to broad legislation based on a single incident.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Birch argued that fiscal notes should take a broader, long-term view rather than focusing only on immediate costs. He referenced an OPE report on recidivism and said lawmakers should consider whether a bill may save money over time and whether costs are shifted to local governments, so decisions are based on the full fiscal picture.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Tanner discussed the state budget outlook and JFAC’s limited flexibility, noting that fiscal notes and agency estimates can lead to later appropriations if costs exceed projections. He warned that the current budget year is tight due to holdbacks and revenue volatility, and emphasized monitoring state revenue closely. He advised legislators to balance cost-increasing bills with cost-decreasing measures, explained that much of the budget is statutorily driven, and identified major cost drivers such as education, corrections, and health and welfare. He also described how committees with statutory programs must make the key cost decisions and pointed to the Legislature’s budget builder tool. The discussion then shifted into corrections and criminal justice costs, with explanations that tougher laws, recidivism, and reentry funding affect long-term spending, and that prevention and reentry programs can reduce future costs even if they require upfront investment. Later remarks addressed how local-government and county incarceration funding is tracked, with a recommendation to consider per-county or population-based payments, and concluded with acknowledgment of the state’s prison capacity management and continuing shortage of reentry centers.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins questioned whether increased enforcement, more laws, and higher imprisonment rates would drive up state corrections costs and the overall state budget. Later discussion referenced and answered his earlier point, including how his question related to corrections spending and county impacts.