David Cannon — The meeting is being called to order for the hearing he is about to present at.
David Cannon — Says he will present the RS and hand the gavel to Vice Chair Weber.
David Cannon — Thanked as Chairman Cannon.
David Cannon — Introduces himself for the record.
David Cannon — Called on to introduce himself and proceed.
David Cannon — Identifies himself, his district, and introduces RS 33-260.
David Cannon — Requests introduction with the stated caveat and asks for a public hearing later.
David Cannon — Clarifies that 'to levy such tax' should not be added and should be removed from Section 5 changes.
David Cannon — Confirms Section 5 should remain as is and says no motion change is needed.
David Cannon — Was thanked for his presentation; the speaker noted that the Idaho Association of Counties would be supportive of the proposal.
David Cannon — His RS 33-260 motion was approved with an exception for Section 5.
David Cannon — Presided over the vote and moved the meeting to the next bill.
David Cannon — Presided over the vote and introduced the next bill.
Kyle Harris — Jon Weber is addressed as Vice Chair/Vice Chairman Weber and identified as the presiding vice chair while Representative Cannon presents.
Britt Raybould — Britt Raybould moves to introduce RS 33-260 and clarifies that the motion is to introduce it with the Section 5 draft changes removed.
Britt Raybould — Moved to send House Bill 734 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Britt Raybould — Representative Raybould asks how many overlapping districts are involved.
Britt Raybould — Representative Raybould is addressed in the response about district overlap and city fire protection.
Britt Raybould — Introduced a motion to send House Bill 670 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Britt Raybould — Likely transcription error in the questioner name earlier in the exchange.
Britt Raybould — Representative Raybould is addressed by Mr. Lehman and then presses the committee on why it should wait for court proceedings if the issue can already be clarified through the language, arguing that the clarification should be made now rather than delayed by litigation.
Britt Raybould — Asked about clarifying the bill to address the lawsuit and legislative intent.
Britt Raybould — Was thanked and referenced as part of the ongoing discussion.
Jason Monks — Jason Monks is recognized as the next member to ask questions and then asks whether the phrase 'to levy such tax' should be included in Section 5 on line 34.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks introduces himself as the sponsor of House Bill 670 and explains the bill during committee discussion. He responds to questions about district overlaps, whether districts can opt out, and how the bill affects revenue and benefits. Monks clarifies that the legislation is intended as a clarification of prior law, notes that he does not know all overlap counts but will try to obtain the information, and explains that the bill does not require proportional payment into the URD but instead redirects property tax revenue. He also states there is no current provision for proportional allocation and reiterates that the measure clarifies last year’s legislation.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks closed by explaining that the bill is meant to clarify definitions in the existing process, especially that any contractual obligation must be a written agreement rather than an informal future promise. He argued that fire districts are taking on new service demands from development without receiving additional revenue, citing examples like Meridian and noting that districts have not been able to get equipment or compensation from urban renewal districts. He said the bill would let districts opt out so they can receive revenue as originally intended, and that it simply clarifies prior legislative intent and the process already passed by the House. He concluded by asking the committee to support the legislation and send it to the floor.
Rob Beiswenger — Appears as 'Representative Burch' asking whether the Idaho Association of Counties reviewed the legislation.
Rob Beiswenger — Asked why the legislature would not clarify a law if litigation suggests the original intent was not fully executed.
Ben Fuhriman — Representative Ben Fuhriman presented House Bill 734, introducing himself as the sponsor and explaining that the issue came from concerns in his district. After the chair opened the floor for questions, he responded that the matter is a recent concern and noted that a school district in his area has discussed running a levy to participate in distributions. He also stated that he had spoken with the Idaho School Board Association, which supports the bill.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch asked whether school districts are running supplemental levies they do not need, then followed up on the revenue examples and asked whether education groups such as the Idaho School Board Association had weighed in on the bill.
Richard Cheatum — A likely transcription error appears to refer to Representative Cheatum as 'Representative Rebold.'
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatham explained that he generally sides with the urban renewal district, citing his experience serving on one and recalling that he had previously been told not to interfere legislatively in litigation or “put our thumb on the scale.” He then stated that he would vote against the bill. Later speakers referenced his point as correct, and the chair ultimately recorded him as a nay.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked for revenue numbers related to the bill.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepard asks what happens when a district withdraws and whether it is a financial gain.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepard is thanked for the question and for prompting the explanation.
Jaron Crane — Representative Crane is referenced in the exchange about committee overlap and district overlap.
Ilana Rubel — The speaker appears to address Representative Rubel; likely a transcription error for Representative Rubel/Rubel.
John Gannon — Raised a question about how much of a fire district's revenue could be retained if only part related to a bond obligation.
John Gannon — Asked whether a fire district could withdraw and only pay the portion tied to a bond obligation.
John Gannon — Asked whether anyone was signed up for public testimony and then moved the committee into public testimony.
John Gannon — Referenced as having asked a question about equipment from urban renewal districts.
John Gannon — Said he is concerned about taxing districts suing each other because it uses property tax dollars and is not a good remedy.
Kelly Packer — Kelly Packer, Executive Director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified in opposition to House Bill 670 and urged the committee to hold the bill. She argued that local taxing districts are broadly struggling financially, including fire districts, police/law enforcement, cities, and counties, and said the legislation would further erode incremental financing opportunities by adding more exclusions. She also noted that some fire districts sought to opt out without first discussing their requests with urban renewal districts, reinforcing her view that the bill should not advance.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri asked follow-up questions after testimony, focusing on whether other districts, such as police districts, should also be exempted from urban renewal.
Ms. Packer — Ms. Packer explained how urban renewal and fire district financing work, including how property tax revenue increases from improvements and how the old funding formula affects local services. She noted that fire districts had opportunities to obtain new fire trucks through urban renewal revenue and discussed the seriousness of withdrawing from an urban renewal district, referencing House Bill 436 and the revenue projections used to establish financing. The exchange then shifted to definitional and contractual-obligation issues raised in her testimony, and Ms. Packer deferred that question to someone who directly runs an urban renewal district before concluding her remarks. Later comments referenced and praised her points about the statutory definitions and related issues.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Barbieri asked how fire districts are supposed to help pay for the extra burden being placed on them.
Barbara Ehardt — Asked Mr. Lehman to clarify the issues being litigated.
Jeff Ehlers — Asked Ms. Packer whether there are different definitions of contractual obligations in the statute.
Ben Lehman — Ben Lehman, representing the Eagle Urban Renewal Agency, asked the committee to hold the bill. He argued that the measure would not solve the underlying issue and would instead create more litigation, especially since the agency is already involved in litigation stemming from last year’s bill. He noted that legislatures typically wait for court cases to conclude before revisiting such matters. Lehman also said the Eagle Urban Renewal Agency has about $5.5 million in contractual obligations and a $1.8 million operating budget, and that the bill would cut the budget by roughly a third. He concluded by asking the committee to consider these litigation and definitional concerns before moving the bill forward.
Mr. Lehman — Mr. Lehman testified that while the legislature has the authority to clarify and fix issues, the committee should wait for the courts to rule because the underlying dispute is still being litigated and may receive further appellate guidance. He argued that passing the bill now would effectively choose sides in the case, would not actually resolve the problem, and could leave the issue unresolved if a future withdrawal request is still denied based on alleged obligations. He explained that the litigation centers on whether contractual obligations exist and whether EURA must return funds to the fire district, and said that question is currently pending in district court. The segment concluded with the committee thanking Mr. Lehman for his testimony.