Richard Cheatum — Moved to approve the committee minutes for March 6, 11, 12, and 13, 2026.
Richard Cheatum — Asked whether the bill's nonprofit eligibility language extends beyond chambers of commerce to other organizations.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum discussed concerns about restrictions on how the funds can be spent, noting that these limits affect where the dollars can be used. He then explained that travel councils and other organizations apply for the funds and that the money helps attract visitors, increase revenue, and support local businesses.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum asks whether there is a process to search other states for a homestead exemption and follows up by asking how many other states have a homestead exemption that needs to be considered. Later, after being recognized for further questions, Cheatum moves to send House Bill 885 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Richard Cheatum — Asked Chairman Cannon whether the process exists.
Jason Monks — Identified as the sponsor of House Bill 861 and invited to present.
Jason Monks — Introduced himself as Representative Jason Monks from District 22 and began explaining the bill's background.
Jason Monks — Closed his presentation and offered to answer questions.
Jason Monks — Responded that grant money would help universities overall because dollars are fungible.
Jason Monks — Explained that the point was that dollars are fungible and grant money would help a university's overall budget.
Jason Monks — Said he did not know whether organizations already partner with educational institutions, and deferred to the Department of Commerce's grant review process.
Jason Monks — Argued that if taxpayer dollars can go to nonprofit organizations for tourism promotion, universities should at least be allowed to apply for similar grants.
Jason Monks — Responded that Barbieri's question was a great question.
Jason Monks — Said chambers of commerce are private-business organizations receiving taxpayer money and argued the bill only allows universities to apply for grants.
Jason Monks — Explained that the 2% bed tax goes to the Department of Commerce, which then uses part of it.
Jason Monks — Explained the 45%/45%/10% split and said universities should at least be allowed to apply for the grant portion.
Jason Monks — Said he did not receive input from the Department of Commerce and emphasized that legislators are the lawmakers.
Jason Monks — Confirmed the 2% bed tax and stated the total was $22 million last year.
Jason Monks — Explained that the Department of Commerce has broken the program into pieces and could decide how to implement the legislation if it passes.
Jason Monks — Was asked to clarify whether the revenues are dedicated funds.
Jason Monks — Explained that the hotel tax revenues are dedicated only because the legislature designated them that way.
Jason Monks — Explained that the fund is dedicated because the legislature designated it for a specific purpose.
Jason Monks — Was asked to clarify the scope of eligible nonprofit applicants.
Jason Monks — Confirmed that the nonprofit eligibility language could include more than chambers of commerce.
Jason Monks — Confirmed that anybody can apply for the grants.
Jason Monks — Closed on the bill by arguing the proposal only allows more entities to apply for grants and does not transfer funds.
Jason Monks — Closed by arguing the bill only allows others to apply for grant money and does not change the underlying tax revenue.
Britt Raybould — Representative Raibold and Representative Britt Raybould questioned the sponsor about how the proposed grant funding would work, specifically whether it would create a fund shift by replacing money universities or institutions already spend on student recruitment or related activities. The discussion also touched on whether prior grant recipients had specific planned activities and whether local organizations were already partnering with educational institutions. Representative Monks responded that the funds would be tax dollars given to a nonprofit, non-governmental organization to promote tourism.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould presented House Bill 885, explaining that it codifies and clarifies Idaho’s homestead exemption rules. She described how the bill requires the exemption to align with official documentation, clarifies that applicants cannot receive a similar homestead exemption in another state, and allows a prior Idaho income tax return with a matching address as proof of residency for those who may not have a driver’s license or state ID. She also explained the residency requirements, exceptions for active military and religious missions, and how the bill ties homestead exemption addresses to existing candidate residency and voting rules. In response to committee questions, she addressed practical enforcement concerns, the possibility of counties withdrawing an exemption if later evidence shows a conflict, the bill’s retroactive January 1 date, and ex post facto concerns, emphasizing that the measure is intended to ensure the benefit goes only to Idaho primary residents acting in good faith. She concluded by supporting the bill and the committee then moved toward a due pass recommendation.
David Cannon — Addressed as the chair during the exchange.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair in the response.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair during the explanation.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair.
David Cannon — Addressed as chair.
David Cannon — Chairman being addressed during the exchange.
David Cannon — Was addressed during the explanation of dedicated funds.
David Cannon — Addressed during the response.
David Cannon — Addressed during the response.
David Cannon — David Cannon introduced himself as the representative for Legislative District 30 and then presented Senate Bill 1345, explaining that it would let the Idaho State Tax Commission communicate with taxpayers by email or other secure electronic means instead of only by U.S. mail or certified mail. He clarified that the electronic communication option is strictly opt-in, so mail remains the default for taxpayers who do not choose electronic delivery. In the follow-up discussion, Chairman Cannon indicated that the Tax Commission had helped shape the bill, was comfortable with it, and should be able to implement it by July 1. The exchange concluded with Chairman Cannon closing the committee’s business for the day.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri questioned how to place guardrails on economic development spending and whether the funds are being used appropriately. He then followed up by asking whether all of the 2% bed tax revenue goes into the fund, and the response indicated that the money does go into the fund.
John Shirts — Confirmed his understanding that the proposal concerns a 2% hotel bed tax and the diversion of that revenue.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts said the bill presents a difficult tradeoff because funding education is important, but he cannot support it because of its potential impact on his constituents in the outfitter and guide industry and on local tourism businesses, which he wants to see grow in Idaho.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts raised a constitutional concern about whether the bill’s retroactive effect could create ex post facto problems, then clarified that ex post facto is generally a criminal-law issue but asked whether the bill could still be problematic if its retroactive effect were considered punitive.
John Gannon — Asked for a list of grants and later asked which grant fund this proposal would come from.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon argued that the grant awards will be competitive, with organizations having to submit the best proposal rather than automatically receiving funding. He then emphasized that he wants to determine where the money is currently going before the bill reaches the floor, framing this as important information for the chamber.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon raises and continues discussing a potential proration issue with the bill, asking whether it could create problems if a person moves after receiving an exemption. He then references Representative Manwaring’s related bill and indicates he will seek consent to refer to the pending legislation.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raymond asked whether hotel tax revenues should be considered dedicated funds rather than general fund dollars, framing them as taxpayer dollars that are not part of the general fund. The exchange continued immediately with a brief acknowledgment involving Representative Raymond in the same discussion about dedicated funds.