Marco Erickson — Representative Marco Erickson is mentioned as a collaborator who has been working on the bill.
Mark Harris — Co-chaired an interim committee with Representative Raymond on vape and vape products.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Shepard asked for a comparison between the proposed vape tax and the tobacco tax, then added that the information would be helpful later if available but was not needed immediately.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum is referenced in a brief acknowledgment and then speaks twice in the same discussion, saying he agrees with Representative Shirts, supports the prior comments, and cannot support the proposal at this point, with one remark reduced to a brief 'ditto' in the interest of brevity.
David Cannon — Representative Raymond directly addressed Chairman Cannon during the same exchange, briefly acknowledging him while responding to the question.
Bruce Skaug — Argued that vaping should not be taxed and regulated to death because studies show it is less harmful than tobacco and is an effective cessation product.
Jeff Cornilles — Recognized the substitute motion and moved the committee forward procedurally.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers asked how the $7 million fiscal note estimate was calculated and requested follow-up information if the explanation was not immediately available.
Britt Raybould — Was referenced as the sponsor in the question period; the transcript appears to misname the sponsor as 'Raymond.'
Britt Raybould — Explained that the $7 million estimate came as a best estimate from the Tax Commission.
Britt Raybould — Introduced herself and explained that RS 33664 would implement a state property tax for local funding, property tax reduction, and infrastructure.
Britt Raybould — Described the mechanics of RS 33664, including occupancy-based taxation and exemptions for homestead-related property.
Britt Raybould — Answered questions and asked the committee to move RS 33664 forward for introduction.
Britt Raybould — Explained that the tax would apply based on occupancy and that collected funds would go back to the county or city where the residences are located.
Britt Raybould — Introduced RS 33659 and explained that it clarifies homestead exemption verification rules, including alternative documentation for seniors without state ID.
John Woude — Moved to introduce RS 33664.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts questioned whether RS 33664 would amount to a property tax increase and specifically a state property tax. He then followed up and stated that he is opposed to any property tax increase, especially a state property tax, though he would support allowing the proposal to be introduced. Later, another member cited Shirts’s concerns and said they agreed with him.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon explained that voting to introduce the bill should not be taken as an endorsement and said any property tax changes should focus on properties that are not currently paying taxes. He then moved to introduce RS 33659.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepard asked whether counties have the ability to investigate or verify whether a person has an exemption in another state and who would be responsible for doing that. The sponsor responded that the responsibility lies with the county.
Jerald Raymond — Was addressed as the sponsor in the question period.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raybould explained that the bill clarifies homestead exemption verification by preventing a person from claiming a similar exemption in another state and requiring continued Idaho residency except for active military service or a religious mission. In response to questions, it was added that counties are responsible for reviewing homestead exemption applications and may search other state records when needed, formalizing an existing verification practice.
Vito Barbieri — Mentioned jokingly as someone who might make the motion to introduce.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri moved to return RS 33573 to the sponsor and then explained his opposition to the bill. He argued that the measure is aimed at student vaping but questioned whether its messaging is appropriate, emphasized that vaping is less harmful than smoking and can help people quit tobacco, and warned the bill could create double taxation because these products may already fall under tobacco definitions. He further criticized the permit and regulatory requirements as unusually burdensome and overreaching, using a hypothetical herbicide example to illustrate what he saw as an excessive regulatory scheme. Barbieri also argued that higher vape taxes could push people toward smoking, cited reports suggesting vaping use is declining among youth and adults, noted that adult use far exceeds minor use, and said existing age restrictions are already being enforced effectively. He rejected the idea of a black market, argued youth access is more likely coming from parents than retail sales, and concluded that the bill overregulates and taxes a product he views as an effective tobacco cessation aid.
Marco Erickson — Representative Erickson was noted as being especially familiar with the bill’s details, but he was away for the week. The speaker added that they had agreed before he left to introduce the bill at the first available opportunity.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raymond introduces himself as the District 31 representative and co-sponsor of the bill, explaining that the measure has been developed over several years with stakeholder input and will be introduced for interim review rather than immediate action. He outlines the bill’s permitting framework, modeled after tobacco regulation, and its definition of nicotine products. He emphasizes that while these products may be lower risk than tobacco, they are still highly addictive and raises concerns about youth use. He then describes key provisions including bonding requirements for out-of-state entities, contraband and tax provisions, and a modernized tax structure. In the later exchange, he responds to questions by comparing the proposed vape tax to Idaho’s tobacco tax revenue, estimating it would generate about $7 million annually, and agrees to try to provide additional requested information.