Brent Crane — Asked whether a national certification transfers between states and what tests a California-to-Idaho mover would need to retake.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Cornel Rasor said he would support the bill and its introduction, but noted he had questions he wanted answered later, particularly about carve-outs and verification practices.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler introduced himself and his district, then presented RS 33102 as a continuation of prior committee work on a shot clock for building inspections. In the ensuing discussion, he explained how the proposal relates to inspection timing, noted that inspections have been streamlined since last session’s legislation, said he would provide more detailed answers at the full hearing, and clarified that if the shot clock is not met, private certified inspectors can step in. He also acknowledged concerns about potential risks and refund mechanics, while saying he had not heard those issues raised by cities or counties.
Kyle Harris — Joined the Rule 80 declaration.
Kyle Harris — Kyle Harris questioned the fiscal note for the proposal, asking whether it could require additional risk management procedures or FTPs, and requested a later breakdown of the expected costs, including audits and related expenses.
Jason Monks — Joined the Rule 80 declaration.
Jason Monks — Asked whether the bill could reduce public-sector incentive to perform inspections.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri is recognized as the next questioner and then asks whether inspections still require paperwork or clearance before work can continue. He follows up with additional questions about inspection tags and delays, keeping the discussion focused on the same inspection-related process.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri expressed strong skepticism about the stable coin proposal, questioning whether it is meaningfully different from a digital dollar and voicing concerns about confusion, government control, and civil-liberties implications. He pressed for clarification on how the two concepts should be distinguished and suggested the committee needed more discussion on the issue.
Dustin Manwaring — Explained that stable coin would be an opt-in payment system for state contractors, intended to speed payments and reduce fees.
Jaron Crane — Responded that the proposal is not a digital dollar, but a payment mechanism using fully backed stable coins and traditional banking rails.
Jaron Crane — Clarified that stable coin is a payment mechanism, not a digitized U.S. currency.
Jaron Crane — Explained that the bill requires fungibility and exchangeability for dollars, and emphasized traceability of the tokens.
Jaron Crane — Distinguished stable coin from cryptocurrency and said it is intended for payments, not investment or replacing the dollar.
Jaron Crane — Was asked to address the fiscal note and potential costs in the bill.
Jaron Crane — Responded that the proposal should not require extra FTPs and should reduce transaction fees.
Jaron Crane — Said transaction fees through the treasurer's office should be reduced and the proposal should pay for itself.
Jaron Crane — Discussed the stable coin proposal with Representative Cheatum before the motion.
Jaron Crane — Agreed to provide the company names and began a closing point about policy design.
Jaron Crane — Said the policy should be agnostic and not pick winners and losers when authorizing stable coin vendors.
Jaron Crane — Explained the possibility of using another state's stable coin and the need for a revenue-sharing agreement.
Jaron Crane — Was asked to address ownership restrictions for companies involved in the stable coin system.
Jaron Crane — Explained the bill’s U.S.-based ownership, custody, and reporting requirements for stable coin issuers.
Jaron Crane — Clarified that the bill focuses on controlling shareholders and control of the entity, not ownership percentage.
Jaron Crane — Was told the issue would need more work to win support.
Jaron Crane — Was called up next to present House Bill 512.
Jaron Crane — Introduced himself and briefly commented that the prior issue was the start of a process.
Jaron Crane — Was told the jurisprudence issue had been brought to his attention over the summer.
Jaron Crane — Referenced as having noted that Idaho differs from other states.
Stuart Ward — Stuart Ward is introduced as the professional land surveyor in Bannock County and Chubbuck who brought the issue to the sponsor. The sponsor indicates he will bring Stuart up to testify, have him introduce himself, and confirms his name when prompted.
Stewart Ward — Stewart Ward introduced himself as the owner of Dioptera in Chubbuck and said he was nervous and would read from notes. He then explained that land ownership in Idaho is important because surveyors deal with legal boundaries that define ownership and rights. He argued that when surveyors determine boundaries, they are effectively acting in a quasi-judicial role, weighing evidence, applying Idaho law, and making impartial decisions that affect property rights, so they need a strong understanding of Idaho jurisprudence.
Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward explained that Idaho surveying law is different from other states and that surveyors need Idaho-specific legal knowledge to avoid recurring mistakes, such as confusing citations and recording errors that can later cause disputes, compounded errors, and litigation. He described how county subdivision plat review in Idaho helps catch problems before they become permanent public records, while private records of survey may not receive the same protection. He argued that the jurisprudence exam and Idaho-specific licensure requirements are preventative measures that protect property rights by ensuring surveyors understand Idaho law before creating records that owners may rely on for years. In response to a question, he also noted that there is currently no reciprocity across state lines and that only the state-specific portion of the exam must be retaken when moving between states.
Evan Page — Evan Page was called to testify and stated strong support for House Bill 512. He explained that after changes to the exam, he has seen surveyors make serious mistakes, including errors involving boundary and title law, map content requirements, and coordination with DEQ. He described a specific case where a surveyor misidentified an easement, leading to legal costs and lost property value for the affected parties. He concluded by urging support for the bill and arguing that Idaho should test competency in professional practice areas.
Mr. Page — Thanked the committee and urged support of House Bill 512.
Eric Stryker — Eric Stryker, Vice President of the Idaho Society of Professional Land Surveyors and owner of Stryker Surveying in Payette, Idaho, explains that land surveyors perform quasi-judicial functions and cites Justice Thomas Cooley on that role. He argues that surveyors cannot properly carry out these duties without at least a basic understanding of Idaho law, especially because they may also serve as expert witnesses in litigation.
Joe Palmer — Representative Joe Palmer moved to send House Bill 512 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
George Yarian — George Yarian of Great Tech Land Surveying testified in support of House Bill 512, arguing that the Board of Licensure needs a jurisprudence exam to properly evaluate applicants. He explained that, as a licensed surveyor in other states, he has seen how state-specific rules differ, including Idaho’s right-of-way standards and measurement practices, and said this kind of Idaho-specific knowledge is important for licensure.
Steve Berch — Asked whether not publishing a home address would make it harder to determine whether a business is located in Idaho or elsewhere.
Steve Berch — Continued questioning whether the proposal would make it harder to know if a business is located in Idaho or elsewhere.
Steve Berch — Said he would support the motion and wanted to continue exploring the issue later.
Steve Berch — Called on after the motion and discussion on RS 3-3-170.
Steve Berch — Asked whether the short-term rental proposal addresses nuisance and neighborhood impacts such as traffic and property values.
Steve Berch — Continued asking about protections for neighboring homeowners.
Steve Berch — Said he supports the intent but wants to hear from professionals about practicality and exceptions.
Steve Berch — Said he supports the intent but wants practical input from the profession and reasonable exceptions.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch briefly responded to a chair-identification correction, then said he would support the motion but wanted to know which companies were involved in the stablecoin discussion and asked for the names of those companies in advance.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum asked for a motion and then moved to introduce RS 32-990.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum discussed the bill with Representative Manwaring and then raised questions about the controlling-shareholder language, asking whether minority shareholders could be non-U.S. citizens. He explained that he was trying to anticipate possible objections, particularly concerns about foreign ownership even if it was not controlling, and another speaker acknowledged that those concerns were valid and worth discussing.
Richard Cheatum — Asked whether out-of-state surveyors need Idaho licensure and whether reciprocity exists.
Jordan Redman — Introduced himself and presented RS 3-3-170 on short-term rental property rights.