Glenneda Zuiderveld — Seconded the motion on the minutes.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Asked whether applications for physical therapist licensing have increased compared with a couple of years ago.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Glenneda Zuiderveld followed up on the agency’s financial situation, asking whether the move to the Chinden campus is the main factor behind its budget strain and whether that move is what is forcing the agency to try to stay afloat.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The speaker references Senator Lenney in the prior section and then explains her view on JFAC discussions, audits, and restructuring.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld is called and appears to vote nay.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Glenneda Zuiderveld questioned why the committee was revisiting a rule she believed had already been voted down, and then followed up by arguing that if statute requires a reason for rejecting the measure, it should also explain why approval is needed. She said a 4-4 vote should ordinarily be treated as final.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Her earlier question was referenced while explaining why some rules were brought back.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The chair stated that Senator Zuiderveld seconded the motion to reject.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld voted aye.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld began a comment/question about state versus federal control in the DEQ-related rule context.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Questioned whether the rules shift control from the state to the federal level.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Said the rules strike state rules and incorporate federal rules, which is one of her concerns.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Said the rules incorporate federal rules and that this is a concern.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Voted nay.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Kaiser was identified as the second on Senator Lenney’s motion to reject, and later he voted aye on the substitute motion during the same procedural vote sequence.
Mr. Duffin — Invited to come forward and introduce himself for the record.
Mr. Duffin — Mr. Duffin asked the committee to approve the pending rule and then responded to questions about the board’s finances and proposed fee increase. He explained that the low cash balance was driven by shared facility costs, the move to OASIS/online licensing, and other transition expenses, though personnel time had been reduced by about 20% since fiscal year 2023, saving a little over $21,000 annually. He also reported that licensure is retracting rather than growing, with a 7.16% decline in fiscal year 2025 and a return to roughly 2022 licensee levels, and said the decline may continue. In discussing fees, he said part of the increase is due to reduced licensure, but emphasized that Idaho remains cheaper than neighboring states and other doctoral-level licenses. He later clarified that the division’s finance team and data analyst model different fee scenarios and their impacts, though he did not have the analysis with him and could provide it later.
Orrin Duffin / Warren Duffin — Introduces himself and testifies on behalf of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses.
Josh Keyser — Senator Kaiser asked about the statutory five-year rolling average and the cash balance threshold, then followed up by asking why the cash balance fell to 16%, what caused it to drop that low, and whether a fee increase had been anticipated as the response.
Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney continued a single line of questioning about the rationale for the fee increase and DOPL’s financial outlook. He asked whether fewer applicants could be contributing to higher fees, whether DOPL had completed a formal cost-benefit analysis or could provide a written comparison of the effects of raising versus not raising the fee, and whether consolidating DOPL under one roof would eventually reach a break-even point that could lead to future fee reductions.
Brian Lenney — Said he would like to see a cost-benefit analysis before approving the docket.
Brian Lenney — Argued that he wants a cost-benefit analysis and said the fee increase seems unreasonable without supporting data.
Brian Lenney — The speaker says they enjoy sitting across from Senator Lenney during the discussion.
Brian Lenney — The speaker references Senator Lenney while making the case for approving the fee increases.
Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney is called during the roll call.
Brian Lenney — Was referenced as someone who may recall a prior rejection example from last year.
Brian Lenney — Senator Brian Lenney was called on, then stated that the proposed rule represented a 100% fee increase and moved to reject docket 24-0601-2501 in its entirety due to insufficient data and lack of a cost-benefit analysis. The chair restated the motion, and later Lenney voted aye.
Brian Lenney — Provided the second to the motion.
Brian Lenney — Voted aye.
Brian Lenney — Referenced as wanting the projections.
Brian Lenney — Was recognized to discuss the motion.
Brian Lenney — Argued the fee rule increases fees by 100 to 150 percent and questioned the relevance of South Dakota to Idaho.
Brian Lenney — Continued opposing the fee increase, citing complaints data and arguing that title protection would be more appropriate than higher fees.
Brian Lenney — Formally moved to reject Docket 24-1701-2501 in its entirety, citing insufficient data and unreasonable fee increases.
Brian Lenney — Named as the maker of the motion to reject in its entirety.
Brian Lenney — Requested a roll call vote and acknowledged the South Dakota point.
Brian Lenney — Voted aye on the substitute motion.
Mr. Gardunia — Joined the meeting online and was asked to introduce himself for the record.
Jonathan Gardunia — Jonathan Gardunia, president of the Idaho Physical Therapy Association, said the association supports the proposed fee change after discussing it with DOPL. He explained that the increase would help agencies balance budgets and remain fiscally responsible, and stated that the association prefers raising the fee over consolidating or merging boards, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an independent licensing board.
Julie VanOrden — Julie VanOrden is addressed repeatedly as the chair during a committee exchange, with members saying 'Mr. Chair' as they speak to the presiding officer.
Julie VanOrden — Chair Van Orden votes aye.
Julie VanOrden — Asked about the finding-of-fact requirement and noted it seemed new to the committee.
Julie VanOrden — Asked when the finding-of-fact requirement was added to the code and whether it was a recent change.
Julie VanOrden — Requested that the committee go at ease so members could discuss Senator Shippy's question with the secretary present.
Julie VanOrden — Chair Julie VanOrden managed the committee’s action on Docket 24-0501-2501. She first called for a motion and moved to approve the docket, specifying an exception for section 400 on fees. She then asked whether everyone understood the motion, invited discussion, and directed the secretary to conduct a roll call vote. After voting aye, she allowed a finding of fact to be added to the record regarding the rejection of the rules and explained that the rules were rejected so professionals could review them for compliance with Idaho Code. The exchange concluded as she was thanked and the committee moved on to the next docket.
Julie VanOrden — Announced that the substitute motion failed by a five-to-four vote and returned to the original motion.
Mark Harris — A speaker refers to Senator Kaiser and then follows up by noting that the plan came from JFAC, keeping the discussion focused on Kaiser’s connection to the proposal and its legislative origin.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris votes aye.
Mark Harris — Senator Mark Harris was recorded as voting aye in the roll call.