Joe Alfieri — Introduced himself as Representative Alfieri from District 4 and presented House Bill 626.
Joe Alfieri — Named as the representative presenting the bill.
Joe Alfieri — Presented House Bill 626 and explained the purpose of impact fees.
Joe Alfieri — Answered questions after presenting House Bill 626.
Joe Alfieri — Responded that he did not know why the fee is assessed that way.
Joe Alfieri — Said he does not know why the fee is assessed that way.
Joe Alfieri — Speculated that a city may view the fee as an additional tax on residents.
Joe Alfieri — Confirmed the bill does not create new fees, only requires implementation.
Joe Alfieri — Was apologized to after the committee realized the discussion was about a different bill.
Joe Alfieri — Responded that there is no enforcement mechanism and said other bills address that issue.
Joe Alfieri — Explained that the bill was brought to him by a county commissioner in Kootenai County.
Joe Alfieri — Described the local situation prompting the bill: a city refused to collect impact fees after the county decided to build a jail and courthouse/administrative building.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri was called back to answer further questions about the legal implications of Mr. Schroeder’s argument. He said that if Schroeder is correct, the entire section would be invalid rather than merely needing a wording change, but emphasized that this constitutional issue was different from the committee’s immediate question. He deferred the legal analysis to attorneys, then closed by arguing that counties need the ability to collect fees to pay for community-serving projects like courthouses and jails, and asked for a yes vote.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri is referenced during discussion of the legislation as someone whose input remains part of the ongoing conversation, and shortly afterward his roll-call vote is recorded as 'No.'
Joe Alfieri — Said he had one question and argued the bill appears to make the program seem optional while requiring publication of a statement if an agency cannot enter the agreement.
Joe Alfieri — Recorded as voting yes; transcript misspells his name as 'Elfieri.'
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt is repeatedly addressed as the chair during the meeting, with speakers referring to her as Chairman/Chairman Ehardt and Madam Chair while conducting the same exchange.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt, acting as chair, transitions the meeting after thanking the witness and then reminds the committee of the procedure for how they will proceed forward.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt introduces herself as the representative from District 33 in Idaho Falls and explains the background for the meeting, including her concern and why she invited other legislators such as Representative Green and Representative Weber. She then concludes her remarks by opening the floor for questions from the committee.
Barbara Ehardt — As Chair, she recognizes the next questioner and manages the discussion.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt is addressed as Madam Chair throughout a continuous question-and-answer exchange about the bill. The sheriff begins answering questions, including explaining the three 287(g) models and the bill’s mandate language, while the chair allows the discussion to proceed briefly. The chair then interrupts to note that there are other questions and people waiting to testify, saying some of the discussion is beyond the scope of the bill and moving to cut off the extended exchange.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt is addressed in two brief opening remarks to the chairwoman during the committee meeting, both simply greeting the presiding officer and members of the committee.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum asked why the county cannot collect its own development impact fees, questioning the restriction on the county’s ability to collect those fees directly.
Richard Cheatum — Was addressed when the witness responded that she could not answer his earlier question.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch questions whether the use of 'may' instead of 'shall' makes the law more cooperative than mandatory, and follows up on how that wording affects city participation and county funding in the process.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum speaks in opposition to House Bill 626, citing concerns raised by Mr. Schroeder, and initially offers a substitute motion to return the bill to the sponsor. He then withdraws that motion and instead moves to hold House Bill 626 in committee. Later in the same discussion, his concerns are acknowledged, and during the roll call he votes yes while being listed among members opposed to advancing the bill.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum engaged in a sustained exchange about the bill’s 287(g) provisions, questioning whether the language requires agencies to participate or merely apply, arguing that the requirement could burden small cities and counties with limited law enforcement resources, and asking whether some agencies already participate in the program. The discussion centered on clarifying that the bill concerns making application rather than mandating participation.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch questions the bill’s jail enforcement model, its costs, and whether the sheriff could backfill positions and what consequences that might have. He then continues probing the bill’s staffing implications, the scope of its future-program language, and whether the measure could lead to mission creep or unintended expansion of the program.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Collier is addressed in the exchange; the name appears to be a transcription error or mismatch.
Richard Cheatum — Recorded as voting no; transcript misspells his name as 'Sheetam.'
Kent Marmon — Representative Kent Marmon asked Representative Alfieri why a city would not collect the impact fee.
Kent Marmon — Votes no in the roll call; name appears as 'Mormon.'
Kent Marmon — Began responding in support of the bill, saying law enforcement is charged with enforcing the law.
Kent Marmon — Supported the bill, arguing that law enforcement is paid to enforce the law and should do so regardless of agency.
Kent Marmon — Recorded as voting yes; transcript misspells his name as 'Mormon.'
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler asked whether the bill includes an enforcement mechanism, indicating he may be missing it and pressing for clarification on why such a mechanism is absent.
Clint Hostetler — Moved House Bill 626 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, citing urgency.
Clint Hostetler — Votes no in the roll call; name appears as 'Hosteller.'
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler questioned the sheriff about participation in the 287(g) program, including whether the sheriff personally takes part, whether citizenship status is checked when detaining serious offenders, and whether joining the program would provide additional resources to help address serious criminals and better protect the public.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler is recognized, thanks the chair, praises the bill, argues that it will provide needed resources and options for law enforcement in precarious times, and then moves to send House Bill 659 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Recorded as voting yes; transcript misspells his name as 'Hawthaler.'
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug asked Representative Alfieri how the bill originated and whether it was his idea or brought to him by someone else; the exchange concluded with a brief thank-you to Skaug.
Bruce Skaug — The chair asks whether he has a follow-up question.
Bruce Skaug — The chair indicates a follow-up question from Representative Skaug and then moves on.
Bruce Skaug — Referenced indirectly as the person who asked about the constitutional issue earlier.
Bruce Skaug — Prepared to ask a follow-up question.
Bruce Skaug — Asked Representative Alfieri for a legal opinion on the bill's constitutionality.
Bruce Skaug — Said he supports the need for a solution but will vote no because he does not think the bill solves the problem.
Bruce Skaug — Referenced indirectly in the ongoing committee discussion about the bill and constitutional concerns.