Elaine Price — Representative Elaine Price raises repeated concerns that the bill could have unintended consequences by making it harder to find qualified appointees or candidates for positions. She notes that recent bills have already required expanding the pool of eligible people because it has been difficult to find individuals willing or able to run or serve, and she warns the committee that this bill could create similar future constraints. Her concern is then directly acknowledged and echoed by other members.
Elaine Price — Representative Price asked why library districts are included in the bill and whether they are being carved out as well.
Elaine Price — Representative Price repeatedly asked for clarification on how the fire district would collect the fees, requesting a walkthrough of the process and specifically how the actual collection would work, including whether bills would be sent directly to the district. The exchange remained focused on the mechanics of fee collection, with Chief Timmonski briefly responding and inviting follow-up.
Elaine Price — Representative Sauter explains and defends House Bill 766 as an administrative efficiency measure for fire and EMS district impact fees. He emphasizes that the bill does not create new fees or increase the tax burden, but instead helps districts update and have their existing fee schedules collected more efficiently. He notes that the fees are developed by the fire or EMS districts themselves, then adopted by cities and counties, and that the bill would reduce the time and legal costs of lengthy intergovernmental negotiations. He also clarifies that the bill does not determine whether districts pursue impact fees, but simply streamlines the collection process for districts that already have them in place.
Elaine Price — Elaine Price first responds to the bill by saying she is not opposed to fire districts being able to decide what they need and to reduce barriers in the current process. She then states her agreement with the bill and support for sending it to the floor. In the same exchange, she jokes about being thanked for pronouncing a name correctly, then continues by explaining that fast-growing valley communities are struggling to keep up, and that the current system delays payments across different entities, which hurts response times and leaves departments without needed equipment. Overall, she supports making impact-fee collection more efficient for growing communities and fire districts.
Elaine Price — Representative Price is called on and then states support for fire departments but opposition to the bill because of concerns that it would add to housing market impacts.
Elaine Price — Recorded as voting no in the roll call.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins raises concern that the bill may conflict with another residency-related measure and could require people to change residency within 30 days of coming to the state. After a response from Representative Dygert, Hawkins is recognized again and continues the discussion, saying he is not sure his question was answered and reiterating his concern about a possible conflict between residency and voting rules.
Dale Hawkins — Recorded as voting no in the roll call.
Richard Cheatum — Moves to send House Bill 797 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum first asked whether the bill would apply retroactively in the library district example and was answered by Representative Sauter. Cheatum then spoke in support of the bill, describing it as a patchwork fix for a statewide problem created by House Bill 389. Later, Lewis referenced Cheatum’s earlier supportive remarks.
Richard Cheatum — Asked whether the bill allows administrative costs for the agency collecting and transmitting the fee.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum asked what enforcement mechanisms exist if a city refuses to collect development impact fees, including whether a noncompliant city could be de-annexed from the district or otherwise compelled to collect the fees.
Richard Cheatum — The transcript appears to misrecognize 'Representative Birch'; likely a reference to Representative Berch or another member, but it is unclear.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatham thanked the chair and supported simplifying the process, then explained that fire department costs are rising sharply by comparing the past and current price of a ladder truck, noting that a truck that once cost $1.75 million and was paid for in advance now costs almost $2.5 million.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatham opens by thanking the chair and Mr. Burgess, then begins a question about the objection to the proposal, specifically whether the concern is the 50% allocation toward apparatus and the broader issue of replacing existing capital.
Richard Cheatum — Raises insurance costs as an overlooked consequence of slower fire response times.
Richard Cheatum — Recorded as voting yes in the roll call.
Steve Berch — Representative Steve Berch states that he will support the motion and notes a similar issue involving cemetery districts from the previous year. His remarks are then acknowledged before the vote.
Steve Berch — Representative Berch moved to send House Bill 765 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, and the discussion that followed continued to reference and support his position on the bill. Other speakers echoed agreement with Berch’s support and later referred back to his earlier remarks in favor of the legislation.
Steve Berch — Representative Berch asks whether the bill is essentially just making fee collection more efficient, and the response confirms that characterization, framing the bill as a process improvement rather than a new fee-creation measure.
Steve Berch — States opposition because of housing costs and wants to see how the other bill performs first.
Steve Berch — Argues the two bills are separate: one concerns obtaining money already owed, the other concerns flexibility in spending it.
Steve Berch — Addressed by name as the next speaker after the prior member said they would vote no.
Steve Berch — Argued that the bill gives local governments flexibility because communities have different needs and population centers require professional fire service.
Steve Berch — Recorded as voting yes in the roll call.
Mark Sauter, District 1, Sandpoint area — Introduces himself and begins testimony on House Bill 765.
Mark Sauter, District 1, Sandpoint area — Introduced himself and began explaining House Bill 766.
Kent Marmon — The chair indicates questions will be opened to the committee, and the representative is thanked.
Kent Marmon — Recorded as voting no in the roll call; name is misrecognized as 'Mormon.'
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler asked whether anyone had come out in opposition to the bill and followed up by asking if there were any foreseeable issues or expected opposition.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler was introduced and then spoke in support of the bill, agreeing with the main talking points while noting concerns about precedent, unintended consequences, and lingering confusion. He indicated he would move the bill forward to the floor but would reserve his vote and follow up with additional questions.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler asks whether he can refer to the previous piece of legislation in his question, and the response indicates that the concerns do not overlap with that prior legislation.
Clint Hostetler — Called on after Representative Cheatum's support statement; likely a transcription error for Hostetler or Hawkins, but uncertain.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri asked whether the proposal had been seen the previous year, and the discussion continued with reference to prior work on fire district consolidation, keeping the focus on the proposal’s history and related past efforts.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri repeatedly expressed confusion about the bill’s fee-collection process, asking who physically collects the fee, whether the bill creates any new accounting or collection office, and what the bill changes if cities and counties are already collecting the fees.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Joe Alfieri first asks whether a fire district imposes a single impact fee across multiple communities, prompting a response that the bill is intended to address that issue. He is then referenced as having previously brought a bill on related impact-fee collection problems. Later, Alfieri opens the discussion himself, saying he is unsure how he feels about the bill and leaning against it because he is uncertain who should impose the impact fee, preferring that county commissioners retain that role.
Joe Alfieri — Was thanked in the prior exchange as part of the committee discussion context.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri questioned Mr. Burgess about whether existing statute prevents spending up to 50% on equipment. The discussion continued as Mr. Burgess responded and Alfieri followed up on the distinction between equipment and capital assets, keeping the exchange focused on the same statutory and budgeting issue.
Joe Alfieri — Recorded as voting no in the roll call.
Barbara Ehardt — Madam Chair guided the committee through the end of the House Bill 765 discussion by fielding questions, calling for a motion, briefly apologizing for moving too quickly, inviting the witness to testify, and then asking for any final questions or closing remarks. She then called for discussion and the vote on House Bill 765, noted that Representative Sauter would carry the legislation, and finally asked Representative Sauter to return for House Bill 766.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Birch participates in a continuous discussion with the witness and chair about fire department funding and staffing. He asks whether the bill is necessary to adequately fund and run a fire department, and the exchange continues into questions about how the district’s budget authority and ability to staff a station and purchase apparatus would change without House Bill 389.
Barbara Ehardt — Referenced as having presented the bill and concerns.
Josh Wheeler — Likely the intended legislator referenced as having worked on the bill; transcript says 'Josh Hanner,' which appears to be a transcription error.
Josh Wheeler — Moved that House Bill 766 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler first asks clarifying questions about whether the bill would simplify situations where a fire district spans multiple taxing entities and whether it would still improve efficiency if impact fees decrease rather than increase. He then speaks to the motion in support, arguing that the bill is aimed at improving efficiency, reducing administrative burden on entities that have grown into fire districts, and preserving a second layer of review without requiring multiple redundant reviews.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Josh Wheeler is recorded as voting yes in the roll call.
Tyler Lewis — Tyler Lewis testified on behalf of the Eagle Fire Protection District in support of the bill. He explained that current fire service boundaries and tax areas do not align, especially in North Ada County, and said the bill would help bring areas under one jurisdiction and give cities and fire districts a mechanism to complete annexations without losing tax revenue under the 8% cap. He concluded by thanking the committee, and the chair then thanked him and noted there were no questions.
Marco Erickson — Representative Sauter explained that the bill is intended to give fire districts more control over their own operations without changing the tax structure or charging anyone more. He said the measure would make government more efficient, was developed with input from fire districts, counties, and cities, and is only about authority. He also clarified that existing service fees and impact fees would not change, noting that fire districts already pay a service fee and that any fee collection process remains the same.
Marco Erickson — Referenced as the possible person to answer whether other entities should be included.