Jim Guthrie — Senator Adams questioned how the bill would affect duplex rentals and existing local rules, asking whether it would change a person's ability to rent out a duplex, whether cities already allowing duplexes would be impacted, how cities currently designate duplex or multifamily areas, and whether approvals are handled locally on a case-by-case basis. The discussion then turned to whether the bill is needed at all if many cities already permit duplexes, and whether it would force cities that do not currently allow them to do so.
Van Burtenshaw — Senator Burtenshaw is introduced as the next speaker and then asks what cities should do if they need to amend comprehensive plans or hire consultants to implement the bill, including whether they may need to go beyond simply adding new ordinance or code language to zoning ordinances.
Doug Okuniewicz — Senator Taves was discussed as having worked closely with the Association of Idaho Cities on language changes to the bill, including amending it in response to their suggestions and making requested clarifications. The discussion also noted that the bill would fit within comprehensive plans that already allow single-family dwellings, meaning duplexes and twin homes would be permitted in those same areas.
Doug Okuniewicz — Senator Den Hartog moved that Senate Bill 1345 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation, and the chair immediately noted her as the maker of the motion.
Kelly Packer — Kelly Packer, Executive Director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified that the association had not yet taken a formal position but would consider one at its board meeting on Friday, with a recommendation to at least remain neutral or possibly support the bill. She noted some concern about Section 3’s “as a matter of right” language, but said cities would still retain approval standards, special conditions, and administrative processes that shape how developments are approved. She added that, given Senator Taves’ collaboration and if the same standards apply to single-family, twin home, and duplex builds, the association could likely accept the bill, and she concluded by offering to answer questions.
Ms. Packer — Ms. Packer explained that zoning rules vary by city, but many Idaho cities already allow multifamily or duplex housing in single-family areas, making the bill a relatively modest change. She said the bill still preserves local land-use authority and infrastructure considerations like water and sewer, while clarifying issues such as utility connection and impact fees being charged by unit. She also noted that Idaho already has many approved housing permits and units that are not being built, argued the bill encourages cities to think differently about duplexes, and supported an amendment limiting the bill’s application to cities over 5,000 people to address concerns about smaller cities and revenue impacts.
Dale Hawkins — Addressed by the witness in response to the question.
Heather Greenman — Heather Greenman was introduced as a virtual witness, welcomed, and given three minutes to testify. She then testified in support of the bill, saying she was glad to see Senator Taves bring it back. Greenman described her own experience as a homeowner in her late 30s and contrasted it with friends and family who are struggling to afford homes, including some who only have trailer housing with lot rent or are considering leaving Idaho. She said Post Falls has seen mostly expensive homes and apartments, leaving few attainable options, and argued the legislation would give cities more flexibility and expand housing choices through the free market. She closed by asking the committee to support the bill, and the chair thanked her with no questions from the committee.
Josh Tanner — Senator Taves is discussed as the sponsor bringing the bill back, is thanked for his work on the legislation, and is then invited to provide closing remarks.
Reese Empe — Reese Empe, State Policy Manager with Pacific Legal Foundation, introduced himself and then testified in support of the bill’s by-right provision. He explained that his organization generally supports increasing housing types and protecting property rights, and he thanked Senator Taves for the provision.
James Ruchti — Senator Adams followed up after testimony by asking whether the lack of construction for these homes might be due to low demand rather than regulation.
Ben Adams — Senator Adams explains that he cannot support the motion and raises opposition concerns. Another speaker directly reassures him that the legislation would not allow a house to be built right next to his. Senator Adams then responds briefly, acknowledging the reassurance while continuing his opposition discussion.
Ben Adams — Asks whether the program is opt-in and raises concern about older taxpayers being forced into electronic communication.
Ben Adams — The witness responds directly to Senator Groh's concern and explains the opt-in nature of the system.
Ben Adams — Asks about follow-up and penalties if emailed notices are missed or deleted.
Ben Adams — Identified by the chair as the second on the motion.
Ben Adams — The chair identified Senator Adams as the second on the motion.
Treg Bernt — Senator Taves states that they will support the motion and declares a potential conflict/disclosure related to their housing policy work with cities. The exchange then concludes with a brief thank-you after the motion carries.
Mr. Yost — Invited to present Senate Bill 1345 on behalf of the Tax Commission.
Mr. Yost — Responds that he will explain the follow-up process for the secure electronic environment.
Aaron Yost — Introduces himself on behalf of the State Tax Commission and presents Senate Bill 1345 on secure electronic communication.
Mr. Yost / Aaron Yost — Ends his opening presentation and stands for questions.
Mr. Yost — Mr. Yost explained that the bill allows taxpayers to opt in to receive communications electronically through a TAP account, pointing to the relevant bill language. He clarified that participants should understand an email notice as the electronic communication itself, similar to how people receive bills and notices online from other organizations. The exchange then concluded with the committee asking if there were any further questions for Mr. Yost before proceeding to the vote.