Jaron Crane — Said the bill should not require extra risk management or FTPs and argued it would save the state money through lower transaction fees.
Jaron Crane — Met with Representative Cheatum earlier that morning to explain stablecoin.
Jaron Crane — Agreed to provide company names and said he had concerns about other state versions of similar proposals.
Jaron Crane — Representative Manwaring is referenced throughout a continuous discussion: he had been informed about a jurisprudence issue over the summer, his observation that Idaho is different from other states is cited, and he is identified as someone available to answer questions.
Steve Berch — Representative Birch first asks whether hiding a home address would make it harder to determine if a business is located in Idaho. He then states support for the motion while indicating he wants to continue exploring the issue later. After being recognized again, he asks whether the bill includes provisions addressing nuisance concerns and property-value impacts from short-term rentals.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch briefly responded to the chair, then said he would support the motion despite concerns about the federal 'Genius Act.' He also asked for the names of companies currently providing stablecoin services and those seeking to qualify.
Richard Cheatum — Requests a motion.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum introduced RS 33063 after discussing stablecoin with Representative Manwaring. The ensuing discussion focused on ownership restrictions, including concerns about foreign or partial ownership, and another member acknowledged the validity of Cheatum’s point and said the issue should be discussed further.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum asked whether a surveyor from another state must be licensed by the state board to practice in Idaho or whether reciprocity exists across state lines. Mr. Ward responded that there is currently no reciprocity across state lines by the licensing board.
Josh Wheeler — The chair hands the gavel to the vice chair to preside.
Josh Wheeler — Introduced himself as Representative Josh Wheeler from District 35.
Josh Wheeler — Explained that RS 33102 builds on prior legislation that created a shot clock for building inspections.
Josh Wheeler — Was the subject of Barbieri's question.
Josh Wheeler — Confirmed that a color tag is typically placed on equipment to indicate whether work can continue.
Josh Wheeler — Said he would provide more detail at the full hearing and stated inspections have been streamlined since last year's legislation.
Josh Wheeler — Said he would bring members of the profession to address concerns about the proposal.
Josh Wheeler — Was asked to explain the process involving expired shot clocks, private entities, certification, and refunds.
Josh Wheeler — Explained that private inspectors already exist, are certified, and that refund handling with cities needs more detail.
Josh Wheeler — Was asked to comment on whether the proposal could create a public-sector disincentive.
Josh Wheeler — Acknowledged the risk raised by Monks and said it should be explored further in the full hearing.
Jordan Redman — Representative Jordan Redmond is introduced and presents RS 33170, a short-term rental property rights proposal. He then returns to introduce RS 33182, which would require employers to verify legal immigration status through E-Verify, noting he has worked with other legislators on the measure. Members indicate support while raising follow-up questions about carve-outs and how verification currently works in Idaho, which Redmond agrees to address in the full hearing. After the motion to introduce RS 33-182 passes, he turns the gavel back over to the chairman.
Jordan Redman — The chair was being addressed during the exchange.
Cornel Rasor — Says he will vote for the bill but has questions about carve-outs.
Kyle Harris — Representative Kyle Harris expressed support for the introduction and asked how verification is currently handled in Idaho. He was then acknowledged during the Rule 80 exchange.
Kyle Harris — Asked about the fiscal note, possible FTPs, and the cost of audits and risk management.
Jason Monks — Jason Monks is referenced in a Rule of 80 exchange and then raises a concern that the proposal might lessen the public sector’s incentive to carry out inspections. The discussion continues with a direct response to his question, keeping the focus on the same policy issue.
Vito Barbieri — Vito Barbieri questioned whether inspections still require paperwork or clearance to allow work to continue, then followed up by asking about the process for getting inspection tags and whether the state is trying to further regulate that process.
Vito Barbieri — Raised strong concerns that the proposal could enable government control over spending and said he is not sold on the idea.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Birch expressed support for the motion but indicated a desire to revisit the issue during the hearing to get practical input from the profession. The next speaker acknowledged that support, addressing Representative Birch directly.
Kent Marmon — The transcript says 'Representative Manwaring'; no exact member match is provided, so this is treated as an unknown speaker name in the text, but the section clearly introduces a new representative from District 29.
David Cannon — Representative Manwaring is involved in a continuous discussion of HB 512, beginning with questions about whether there are restrictions on ownership of the companies involved and clarifications of the speaker’s identity. The exchange then shifts to a brief challenge from David Cannon about needing to persuade him on the issue, followed by references to Representative Manwaring’s introduction and continued presentation of House Bill 512.
Brent Crane — He said he would support the motion to introduce RS 33063, though he is not yet convinced on the issue.
Brent Crane — Representative Crane asked whether national certification would transfer from state to state, specifically whether someone moving from California to Idaho would need to retake the national test, the state-specific test, or only the state-specific test.
Stuart Ward — Stuart Ward was introduced as the witness and then testified in support of the Idaho surveying jurisprudence exam. He explained that he brought the issue forward because surveying involves applying Idaho law to boundary decisions, not just technical measurements, and that surveyors act in a quasi-judicial role affecting property rights. He argued the exam is a preventative measure to ensure surveyors understand Idaho-specific legal requirements, noting support from the Idaho Society of Professional Land Surveyors and differences between Idaho law and other states. He described recurring problems when surveyors lack this knowledge, including errors that can lead to disputes, litigation, and long-term impacts on multiple property owners, especially in private records of survey that do not receive the same review as subdivision plats. He concluded that the exam protects property rights and improves confidence in the profession, then answered questions about out-of-state surveyors, explaining that Idaho does not have reciprocity and that states generally require their own state-specific exam in addition to the national exam.
Evan Page — Evan Page was invited to testify and then stated his strong support for the bill. He explained that recent licensees often struggle with subdivision map requirements, including monumentation rules, required certificates and statements, the relevance of titles 31, 42, and 43 to residential subdivision creation, and how these issues can sometimes affect irrigation rights of way.
unidentified witness — The witness described recurring surveyor errors in residential subdivision work, including mistakes involving boundary and title law, easement locations, map content requirements, and coordination with DEQ review. He then gave a specific example of a surveyor misunderstanding the statutory boundaries of impounded lakes, which led to an easement being misidentified and caused the client substantial legal fees and property-value losses. He concluded that these kinds of survey problems often go unnoticed for years until another competent surveyor discovers them, but they still impose significant costs on landowners to fix.
Mr. Page — Urged support for House Bill 512 and warned that without competency testing, constituents will face costly survey errors in the future.
Eric Stricker / Eric Stryker — Introduced himself as vice president of the Idaho Society of Professional Land Surveyors and owner of Stryker Surveying in Payette, Idaho.
Eric Stryker — Eric Stryker argued that land surveyors perform quasi-judicial functions and therefore need at least a basic understanding of Idaho law. He opened by citing Justice Thomas Cooley’s discussion of the quasi-judicial role of surveyors, then asked how surveyors can fulfill those duties without knowing the law, and added that surveyors often serve as expert witnesses in litigation, which further requires legal understanding.
Joe Palmer — Joe Palmer moved to send House Bill 512 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, the motion was acknowledged, and it remained before the committee as public testimony concluded.
George Yaron / George Yerian — Introduced himself as being with Great Tech Land Surveying in Gooding, Idaho, and testified in support of the bill.
George Yerian — George Yerian testified in support of the bill, arguing that the Board of Licensure needs a jurisprudence exam to determine whether surveyors understand Idaho law before being licensed. He noted that he is licensed in other states but has placed those licenses on inactive status while practicing in Idaho. He then explained that out-of-state surveyors unfamiliar with Idaho requirements could make filing mistakes, such as using the wrong paper size, and highlighted other Idaho-specific surveying rules, including different statutory right-of-way widths and the use of chain-based measurements in some states.
Jaron Crane — Representative Dygert is asked to introduce himself and present RS 32999.
Jaron Crane — Introduces himself as Representative Sean Dygert, District 23, and presents RS 3-990.
Jaron Crane — Responds that the proposal could make it harder to determine location, but says similar practices already exist in Wyoming.
Jaron Crane — Moves to introduce the measure.
Jaron Crane — A Rule 80 declaration was made referencing Representative Crane-13.
Jaron Crane — Asked for a detailed explanation of how the private-inspector fallback and refunds would work.
Jaron Crane — Asked about the private-inspector process and refund handling.
Jaron Crane — Introduced the RS and explained that it concerns state payments, not cryptocurrency.