Ben Adams — Possibly referenced as the next questioner; spelling is uncertain and may refer to Senator Ben Adams or another member.
Ben Adams — Was thanked after the explanation.
Ben Adams — Was addressed by the witness in response to the question.
Ben Adams — Was thanked by the chair in the transition.
Ben Adams — Was addressed in the transition before Senator Den Hartog spoke.
Ben Adams — Was thanked after the witness's remarks.
Ben Adams — Asked a follow-up question about the board requirements.
Ben Adams — Asked whether the bill would circumvent the citizen panel process.
Ben Adams — Asked whether adding fire departments would circumvent the process.
Ben Adams — Was thanked and then asked another question about how the bill helps small cities.
Ben Adams — Asked how the bill makes it easier for small cities if the process is not circumvented.
Ben Adams — Was acknowledged before the follow-up question.
Ben Adams — Raised another question about how the bill helps small cities if the board requirements remain unchanged.
Ben Adams — Continues pressing the point that the bill may not make the process easier.
Ben Adams — Said he is struggling to see how the bill makes the process easier if requirements remain the same.
Ben Adams — Senator Burnt and other senators questioned the bill’s impact on fees and fire apparatus funding, asking whether it would raise fees or simply allow existing impact fees to be used differently, including for replacement apparatus. The discussion also explored whether the push to change fee usage was driven by revenue losses from House Bill 389, whether the shorter lifespan of vehicles is due to heavier use or manufacturing quality, and why builders oppose using existing impact fees for 50% replacement when fees are not being increased.
Ben Adams — Senator Adams moved to send House Bill 797 to the floor with a do pass recommendation and agreed to sponsor/carry the bill on the floor. The committee acknowledged and thanked him for carrying the bill.
Kelly Packer — Kelly Packer, Executive Director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified in support of the bill. She explained the current process for cities and counties to approve and collect fire-district impact fees through intergovernmental agreements, and said the bill would streamline that process by reducing six public hearings to one while still preserving public input and elected-official decision-making.
Chief Timminsky — Referenced as having provided the example of four cities and two counties.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Senator Groh is part of a short exchange in which he thanks the chair for the explanation and says it was very helpful, and he is thanked in return before the discussion transitions to Senator Den Hartog’s follow-up question about whether a fire district is considered a local unit of government.
Ms. Packer — Ms. Packer explained that fire and sewer districts are treated differently in some parts of the code, and that earlier bill language had made it impossible for them to assess and pass fees themselves. She clarified that the legislation is intended to address that issue by making the process workable for those districts.
Josh Keyser — The chair tells Senator Kahnowitz that public testimonies are lined up and he is welcome to come back later, then repeatedly addresses the senator by name—though the transcript varies the spelling—before continuing the exchange.
Ms. Packard — Praised for explaining the bill and its need regarding fire districts spanning multiple cities and counties.
Ilana Rubel — Raised concern that moving impact fee decisions in-house may reduce public awareness and participation.
Ilana Rubel — Continued expressing concern about reduced public visibility and urged fire districts to notify the public well.
Ilana Rubel — Concluded with a caution that fire districts should notify the public when working on impact fees.
Ilana Rubel — Raised concern that the bill might open the door to broader ramifications for other governmental entities.
Doug O'Connellitz, Legislative District 3 — Identified himself for the record; likely a transcription error for a legislator's name and district.
Kirk Carpenter, Idaho Fire Chiefs Association President — Testified in favor of the bill and described growth in the Nampa Fire Department and call volume.
Arpenter / Carpenter (likely Kirk Carpenter) — Clarified that the bill does not increase impact fees; it allows existing fees to be used for replacement apparatus.
Mr. Carpenter / Kirk Carpenter — Testified that House Bill 389 has significantly affected fire districts because they are property-tax dependent and have limited revenue sources.
Ken Burgess — Ken Burgess, representing the Idaho Home Builders Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He argued that home builders ultimately pay development impact fees, which are passed through to homebuyers, and said those fees were originally intended to fund infrastructure needed for new growth. He warned the bill would let jurisdictions use impact fees for other purposes, stretching them beyond their intended limits and conflicting with existing law that excludes upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements. He added that while the association had not opposed prior changes related to new apparatus or EMS, this bill felt like an unintended expansion and a first step down a slippery slope.
Mark Sauter — Mentioned respectfully by the witness; likely Representative Mark Sauter.
Mr. Burgess — Mr. Burgess argued that while the bill does not directly raise impact fees, it could enable new or higher fees to be used for replacement costs through the CIP and advisory committee process. He said communities are already seeing increased or newly created impact fees after House Bill 389, and that some local governments may be using the situation to justify large fee hikes, such as a sewer hookup fee increase. He also warned that proposed impact fee plans can raise permit fees and housing costs, noted ongoing lawsuits over stretching legal definitions, and said the association did not oppose the other related bills because it agreed there was a real problem to address. He added that counties can sometimes hold fire districts hostage over fund release, described bill 766 as a reasonable solution, and offered to share a letter with suggested fixes to House Bill 389.
Daniel Foreman — In a continuous committee exchange, Senator Burton responds to the witness by criticizing House Bill 389 for harming communities and arguing that until it is fixed, lawmakers will keep seeing carve-out bills for smaller districts and fire districts. He says he sympathizes with Ken Burgess but does not want to be the one opposing the carve-out. The discussion then shifts to follow-up questions from Senator Groh about whether the bill expands the use of impact fees, whether there were concerns with related bills, and what solution the witness would propose if opposing the bill. Senator Robbie also asks for examples of other fee increases since the bill’s passage, prompting a response that in some cases the issue is legitimate.
Ken — The senator apologizes to Ken and thanks him for birthday wishes.
Jim Guthrie — Included in the witness's response as one of the senators to whom a letter could be forwarded.
— Said he would vote to hold the bill, sympathized with fire districts, but opposed this as a fix and wanted the underlying problem addressed instead of a patchwork approach.
— Continued his opposition, saying the problem should be fixed at the root and that shifting costs to home builders could increase home prices.
— Said he would prefer effective fire response but opposed the bill as a slippery slope toward expanding impact fees into a different area.
— Said the issue needed a broader, more holistic fix and that he would support the substantive motion.
— Spoke briefly, saying he was blaming House Bill 389 for his change of heart.
— Said he used the other motion as an opportunity to vent and agreed with what had been said by others.
— Said he understood the arguments and had nothing further to add.
— Seconded Senator Adams's motion.
— Observed that the bill imposes a higher residency standard for fire protection district candidates than a recent legislators' residency bill.
— Commented on the residency requirement comparison between legislators and fire protection district candidates and thanked Senator Adams for carrying.
Shawn Dygert — Introduced himself and presented House Bill 797.
Treg Bernt — Senator Treg Burt introduces himself as being from Reading, Idaho, District 21 and notes his presence at the meeting. The discussion then shifts to House Bill 760, with the chair inviting questions and allowing Senator Groh to make a motion. Senator Burt is identified as the person who will handle any objections and ultimately carry the bill on the floor.
Greg Timminski — Identifies himself as affiliated with Middleton Star Fire Districts and Idaho Fire Chiefs and explains the bill's purpose.