Treg Bernt — Asked to speak to the motion; likely the same senator referenced in the prior section, but the name is questionable.
Treg Bernt — Asked Representative Monks for more clarity about the lawsuit and who is involved.
Treg Bernt — The transcript again appears to misrender the senator's name in the question about the lawsuit.
Treg Bernt — Asks about the second lawsuit referenced by the witness.
Ben Adams — Named as the second on the motion.
Ben Adams — Senator Adams first asks who the Senate sponsor for the bill is, then makes a motion to send House Bill 658 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, with the motion subsequently seconded and discussed.
Jason Monks — Introduced as the presenter for House Bill 670.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks discusses House Bill 670 as a clarification measure, arguing that contractual obligations should be written and signed and that courts should be told directly what the legislature intends. He uses fire district and urban renewal examples to explain why the bill matters for funding services tied to new development, then addresses concerns about the phrase 'sufficient revenue,' saying he would support clearer language if the committee wants to refine it further. The exchange remains focused on clarifying the bill’s language and its impact on fire district funding.
Dave Lent — The transcript appears to misrecognize the senator's name as 'Senator Anthony' and 'Senator Nathan'; the question about the bill affecting the lawsuit is attributed to this senator in context.
Lance Sayers — The chair introduces Lance Sayers as a signed-up witness, and Sayers then testifies in opposition to House Bill 670 on behalf of the Association of Idaho Cities.
Mike Moyle — Sayers attributes a quote to 'the Speaker' saying House Bill 389 has caused problems for fast-growing cities; the speaker is likely Mike Moyle.
Megan Conrad — The chair introduces Megan Conrad, who then testifies as an attorney with Elam and Burke on behalf of the Redevelopment Association of Idaho and the Garden City Urban Renewal Agency in opposition to House Bill 670.
Ms. Conrad — Ms. Conrad continued her testimony opposing the bill, arguing that House Bill 436 creates ambiguity and an additional test for withdrawing funds from a revenue allocation district, which could increase litigation risk. She questioned how obligations should be calculated across fiscal years and noted that the bill may work better for newer districts but not for older districts nearing the end of their life. In response to questions, she suggested that agencies should have the ability to say no, with a meet-and-confer process before litigation, and proposed alternatives such as annual pass-backs of funds rather than withdrawal. She also explained that the bill is forward-looking and that urban renewal agencies have different revenue allocation missions, but returning funds would not solve long-term budget capacity issues. She concluded by emphasizing that front-end conversations are needed if fire and EMS are to participate under House Bill 436, and that the harder question is whether urban renewal assets should fund fire and EMS operations versus being used for hard assets within district boundaries.
Robert Beltran — Robert Beltran was introduced and then testified on behalf of Lakey Villegas Law and Policy in opposition to the bill. He argued that because litigation over the bill is already pending, it is premature to make changes before the courts provide guidance, and suggested the issue could be revisited next year if needed. The chair briefly confirmed and spelled his name.
Mr. Sayers — Mr. Sayers is mentioned as having already eloquently covered much of the issue, alongside Ms. Conrad, with the speaker reiterating that their earlier testimony had addressed the topic well.
Kelly Anthon — Moved to send House Bill 670 to the 14th order for possible amendment.
Jim Guthrie — The discussion identifies Senator Anthony as the person willing to serve as the Senate sponsor and point person for the bill, with the understanding that he will put his name on it for now and could be reassigned later if needed.
Robert Beiswenger — Seconded the motion; likely a transcription error for a member name not confidently identified.
Van Burtenshaw — Senator Burtenshaw said he could support sending the bill to the 14th order and making changes, but he wanted to know who would be in charge of amendments and who the Senate sponsor would be if the bill moved there, noting concern that the pro tem might not have much time to handle it.
Daniel Foreman — A question is attributed to Senator Dan Hartog; likely a transcription error for Senator Van Orden or another senator, but the exact identity is uncertain.
Treg Bernt — Makes the motion to send House Bill 734 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Ben Furman introduces himself as the sponsor of House Bill 734 and continues the discussion by explaining how the taxes involved are collected and distributed through the state tax commission and county clerks.
Van Burtenshaw — Senator Van Orden is identified and repeatedly acknowledged as the floor carrier for House Bill 734.