John Woude — Representative Weber clarifies that the bill does not affect ATV, snowmobile, or park sticker programs.
John Woude — Representative Weber is asked to clarify the statutory reference issue.
John Woude — Representative Weber is told he will carry HB 533 on the floor.
Clay Handy — Representative Handy makes the motion to send HB 533 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clay Handy — Representative Handy introduced himself as Clay Handy from District 27 and explained House Bill 552. He said the bill has two main effects: it changes references from calendar days to business days in one section of code, and it also addresses judgment-related timing by providing a default judgment after a set number of days. He noted he would let someone else explain the judgment portion in more detail.
Mark Harris — Representative Harris asks whether Rule 80 needs to be declared.
Mark Harris — Representative Harris was involved in discussion about whether the residency-definition change applies only to this law or affects actual Idaho residency, and a later reference noted that Harris had already touched on that same issue earlier.
Josh Slyer — Josh Slyer, DMV policy manager, says ITD can review other areas and that the bill suffices for the current issue.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Mike Pohanka is recognized and then continues with a brief comment supporting the bill while noting law enforcement concerns, including that officers may appreciate the stickers but that the measure could lead to more plate-check calls for law enforcement and dispatch.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias is introduced and then testifies on HB 500, explaining his background and discussing how the bill relates to definitions of motor vehicles and electric-assisted bicycles. In response to questions, he notes that broader vehicle classification issues may need updating and that the Legislature may want to address those larger definitional questions separately, while this bill addresses a specific problem.
Chris Mathias — Mentioned in a question directed to them, though the transcript is unclear and may refer to Representative Gannon.
Brooke Green — Representative Green is invited to comment on the bill, is referenced for her earlier point about broader vehicle definitions, and then speaks substantively about the legislation. She says the bill is a step forward, notes the broader micromobility concept used in other states, indicates she will make a motion after commenting, and explains the distinction between motorbikes and electric bikes, emphasizing that e-bikes must have pedals and be at least somewhat human-powered.
Brooke Green — Representative Green asked whether the bill would retroactively require payment of past registration fees, specifically whether people who previously avoided paying registration would have to pay back fees for prior years.
the judge — The judge's ruling was summarized as excluding electric-assisted bicycles from 49-615 because they were not written into the statute.
James Petzke — Asked whether scooters are covered in another section of code and praised the bill.
James Petzke — Asked whether scooters are covered in another section of code and raised the issue of electric scooters.
James Petzke — Referenced as having asked about the definition issue.
James Petzke — His district is cited as an example of where fast motorbikes are being seen.
James Petzke — Introduced House Bill 553 and identified himself as representing District 21 in Meridian.
James Petzke — Described the bill's purpose and legislative history from the prior session.
James Petzke — Explained the bill's 30-day requirements and responded to questions about penalties, initially estimating the driver's license infraction at $80.
James Petzke — Clarified that the driver's license penalty is $75 and was asked whether the vehicle registration penalty is only $20.
James Petzke — Responded that the bill expands applicability but does not change the fine, then deferred to the DMV administrator.
James Petzke — Asked to comment back after the discussion of penalties and deterrence.
James Petzke — Said a stronger penalty could be explored later, but it is outside the scope of this bill.
James Petzke — Clarified that the residency definition change is specific to Title 49.
James Petzke — Confirmed the bill does not address retroactive collection of past registration fees.
James Petzke — Asked which line was being referenced.
James Petzke — Asked for the specific line reference and said he may need to consult others about why the language was drafted that way.
James Petzke — Explained that the Title 49 language should not apply to voting and said the change was intended to remove unnecessary words.
James Petzke — Said he was fine with sending the bill to General Orders or another procedural path because it would not change the bill's function.
James Petzke — Was asked whether he preferred General Orders or a new bill and said he was happy to bring back a new bill.
James Petzke — Said bringing back a new bill would be the faster approach.
James Petzke — Agreed to bring back a new bill and supported that approach.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepard repeatedly questioned the legal treatment of electric-assisted bicycles, raising concerns about how they are classified under different laws, whether they affect hunting access, licensing, and training requirements, and whether they should eventually be considered motorized vehicles. The discussion also included follow-up explanations distinguishing motorbikes from electric bikes in response to his comments.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepard was called on to comment on the motion and then stated that, while he supports the bill’s intent, he is concerned the current wording could muddy the waters for judges, create ambiguity in future cases, and potentially give lawyers another reason to make money.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked whether the change could affect identification cards used for voting and emphasized the importance of residency language.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked for clarification on whether the language could affect voting-related identification cards.
Charlie Shepherd — Suggested returning the bill to sponsor and then moved to hold the bill in committee so it could be fixed and brought back.
Charlie Shepherd — Referenced later in the discussion as asking to be recorded.
Charlie Shepherd — Moved to send House Bill 552 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked to be recorded after the vote.
Charlie Shepherd — Thanked by the chair after requesting to be recorded.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks is addressed in the discussion and then directly asked a question as part of the same exchange following the motion.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks questioned the bill’s resident-definition language, comparing it to clearer definitions used in income tax and voting statutes. He pointed out that the bill removed the phrase 'for registration purposes,' expressed concern that the wording could create ambiguity, asked whether the referenced statute applied to income tax or only voting, and said he would defer to the committee but would be more comfortable if the bill explicitly stated 'for the purposes of vehicle registration, resident means.'
John Gannon — Representative Gannon was invited to ask a question.
John Gannon — Likely the intended reference in the unclear 'Rep. Siv Gannon' phrase.
Daniel Murphy — Daniel Murphy was introduced as the first witness and then testified on his own behalf, saying he was speaking for himself. He supported the legislation, framing it as a transportation safety measure and referencing a near-miss traffic incident to emphasize the need for safer roads for all motorists.
Sean Norton — Sean Norton’s testimony introduces him as a Boise high school senior and the teenage constituent referenced in the bill. He explains that he was injured in an e-bike crash while traveling home from sports practice, and that a judge later ruled e-bikers hit by a car are not covered under the current law. He argues the statute is outdated because e-bikes did not exist when the law was passed in 1988, and he asks the committee to send House Bill 500 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. He closes by noting that he is missing calc and government class to testify.
Rob Beiswenger — Representative Matthias was given a closing opportunity and clarified that the bill does not change definitions or equate electric-assisted bicycles with motor vehicles, but instead is meant to ensure traffic laws are followed. The committee then thanked him for his closing remarks on House Bill 500.