Bruce Skaug — Requested a roll call vote on the motion.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skog was called during the roll call vote and recorded votes in the sequence, including a yes vote followed later by a no vote during the same voting process.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Rasor questions Mr. Lunders about whether county commissioners attend mosquito district board meetings, continuing the same line of inquiry within a single exchange.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Rasor asked whether the chair would consider bringing the bill back if the sponsor could do further work on it. He followed up by noting that the bill appears to give county commissioners substantial local control and reiterated that this is why he was asking whether the chair would be willing to bring it back for additional work.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is part of a discussion about ingredient disclosure and opt-outs. The exchange centers on whether revealing all ingredients would lead more people to opt out, and whether people have a right to know the ingredients and research them before deciding.
Clint Hostetler — Asks whether locals can easily opt out of the program.
Clint Hostetler — Opened committee discussion by thanking the sponsor and preparing to support the bill.
Clint Hostetler — Expressed support for the bill, emphasizing private property and informed consent.
Clint Hostetler — Made the motion to send House Bill 747 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Referenced as a colleague whose point about private property rights was echoed.
Clint Hostetler — Requested a roll call vote and argued that drones can still be used with larvicide and that people should be able to opt out.
Clint Hostetler — Referenced in Birch's remarks as the member whose comment Birch was responding to.
Clint Hostetler — Referenced as the member whose view Representative Alfieri agreed with.
Clint Hostetler — Said that if more people opt out as information changes, that may indicate a larger issue.
Clint Hostetler — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Clint Hostetler — Voted yes on the original motion.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Joe Alfieri questioned whether ingredients are already required to be listed, why the proposal differs from existing annual filing obligations, and continued participating in the questioning of Mr. Lunders on the same issue.
Joe Alfieri — Introduced as the next speaker.
Joe Alfieri — Argued that the real issue is property rights, not mosquitoes, and that the government should not enter private land without permission.
Joe Alfieri — Continued arguing that the bill is about constitutional property rights and permission to enter land.
Joe Alfieri — Thanked after his remarks before the next speaker was recognized.
Joe Alfieri — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Joe Alfieri — Called on during the roll call vote and voted yes.
Ms. Lunders / Mr. Lunders — The speaker was addressed as Ms. Lunders, though the witness appears to be Mr. Lunders from context.
Sarah Allstott — Sarah Allstott was called to testify and spoke in support of HB 747, arguing that it would strengthen enforcement for residents seeking mosquito chemical spray opt-outs. She said families should be able to opt out of treatments on their property and use safer controls, emphasizing that property owners should not have to plead with government to stay off their land. The exchange concluded with a brief confirmation of her name and that she is from Eagle.
Lauren Hughes — Lauren Hughes of Gem County testified in support of HB 747. She identified herself and explained that, in her view, mosquito-abatement chemicals pose serious health risks, including carcinogenic and neurodegenerative concerns, while flood irrigation is a major source of mosquitoes in Gem County. She argued that pressurized irrigation helps reduce infestation and urged the committee to place stronger oversight and limits on abatement districts because they use dangerous chemicals with too little accountability.
Mark Ellison — Mark Ellison is called as the next witness and then testifies in support of House Bill 747. He introduces himself as a resident of Emmett in Gem County and says he works at St. John’s Organic Farm while also starting his own business, Grandad Farms. He argues against the abatement district’s pesticide spraying, saying his family is concerned about health effects, that the literature links the pesticides to cancer risks, and that he prefers local decision-making over government-mandated spraying. His testimony concludes with the chair thanking him and opening the floor for questions.
Daniel Markowski — Daniel Markowski introduced himself as a Canyon County, Idaho resident and technical advisor for the American Mosquito Control Association of America. He explained that in this role he helps communities nationwide develop best management practices and standards for mosquito control, argued that mosquito control is a highly local issue best handled by counties or districts, and concluded by urging the committee to reject House Bill 747.
Rhonda Tomlin — Rhonda Tomlin testified in support of HB 747, explaining that she had verbally opted out in 2021 but still experienced spraying on her property, and said she received no meaningful response from officials. She described attending a commissioners' meeting where the abatement manager presented the plan, criticized the plan being approved without being read or questioned, and argued that taxpayers are funding a harmful program. She concluded that the bill is a compromise but still a step in the right direction because people are effectively paying to poison themselves.
Jared Arnold — Jared Arnold, the Madison County Mosquito Director, testified that he represents Madison County residents and opposes House Bill 747. He explained that mosquito abatement districts in Idaho are funded entirely by local taxpayers rather than state taxes, supporting his view that decisions about these districts should remain local.
Mr. Arnold — Mr. Arnold responds to questions about the bill language, stating that locals can opt out easily and explaining that his county is mostly private land, so the district relies on cooperation and door-knocking. He then clarifies the relevant citation as page one, lines 28 through 32, subsection 6.
Steve Berch — Asks for the citation in the bill again.
Steve Berch — Responded to Representative Hostetler and said the issue involves balancing individual rights with the larger community.
Steve Berch — Argued that too many opt-outs could nullify an abatement district and prevent mosquito abatement from functioning.
Steve Berch — Thanked for prior remarks before Representative Price spoke.
Steve Berch — Referenced as the member whose point Hostetler was responding to.
Steve Berch — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
Carol Andrews — Carol Andrews, from Emmett, Idaho, testifies about living on a 10-acre property and trying various mosquito-control methods, including birdhouses and mosquito-killing canisters. She says she experienced breathing problems after nearby spraying and uses that experience to argue that people should take responsibility for their own health decisions rather than relying on government intervention.
Jeff Ho / Jeff Huff — The chair appears to correct the name of the next witness, likely Jeff Huff.
Jeff Huff — Jeff Huff, chairman of the Bannock County Commissioners, testifies in opposition to House Bill 747, arguing that it creates a legal structure unlike any other state's public health law. After his initial remarks, the chair notes that his time is up but indicates there is a question for him, signaling a continuation of the same discussion.
Commissioner Huff — Commissioner Huff explains that, under their interpretation, a no-fly zone would carry forward if the property is sold. He adds that this continuation would create significant administrative and liability problems for the county, describing it as a major administrative nightmare.
Lana Roberts — The chair called Lana Roberts to testify next.
Dr. Lana Roberts — Dr. Lana Roberts, a veterinarian from Emmett with 29 years of experience, testified in support of mosquito control. She described how mosquitoes spread disease and cause significant suffering for cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and sheep in Gem County, and shared her own daily efforts to protect herself and treat her horses from bites despite existing abatement efforts. Although her family is cautious about chemical exposure and she is a breast cancer survivor, she said mosquito abatement is still necessary. She emphasized that the mosquito problem in Gem County is severe and different from places like Meridian, and her testimony concluded when the chair thanked her and closed her testimony.
Susan Paddock — Susan Paddock was introduced as the final witness and testified in support of the bill. She identified herself as a resident of Gem County in Emmett and argued that citizens should be able to opt out of abatement. She said toxic chemicals should not be forced on the population and emphasized property rights and personal choice.
Kent Marmon — Representative Marmon first asked who would be liable if a property owner opted out and mosquitoes later spread disease, then argued that an opt-out should remain available because responsible districts can still work with property owners and there are other options to balance the policy.
Kent Marmon — During the roll-call vote, the member was called and recorded voting no on the substitute motion, then later voting yes on the original motion. The transcript contains some name transcription uncertainty, but all mentions are part of the same voting sequence.
Mrs. Allsot — Identified as one of the presenters in committee and noted as being from Ada County.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Cornelis was called during roll call votes and recorded two responses in the sequence: first voting no, then later voting yes.
Marco Erickson — Representative Erickson was called during the roll call vote and recorded votes in the sequence, first voting yes on the substitute motion and later voting no in the same voting process.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins was called during consecutive roll-call votes and recorded different votes across the motions: no on the substitute motion, then yes on the subsequent roll-call and original motion.