Joe Alfieri — Speculated that a city may have viewed the impact fee as an additional tax on residents.
Joe Alfieri — Confirmed the bill does not propose new fees, only implementation.
Joe Alfieri — Apologized to for the procedural mix-up and was being addressed on questions.
Joe Alfieri — Responded that there is no enforcement mechanism and said other bills are addressing that issue.
Joe Alfieri — Explained that the bill was brought to him by a county commissioner in Canyon County.
Joe Alfieri — Introduced himself as Representative Joe Alfieri from District 4 and presented House Bill 626.
Joe Alfieri — Presented House Bill 626 and explained the purpose of impact fees.
Joe Alfieri — Was addressed in questioning about House Bill 626.
Joe Alfieri — Said he did not know why the fee is assessed that way.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri was called back up for additional questions and continued the same discussion about the bill’s legal and policy implications. He responded to Representative Rasor’s questions about Mr. Schroeder’s concerns, arguing that the issue went beyond the wording of "may" versus "shall" and instead raised questions about the validity of the broader mechanism. When pressed further, he deferred legal interpretation to attorneys, then closed by urging a yes vote and arguing that beneficiaries should help pay for courthouses and jails through fees, emphasizing that bills must be paid.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri is referenced during the discussion and then later identified in the vote, where the transcript records a 'No' vote for Representative Elfieri.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri asked whether the program is effectively optional and began reading the bill language indicating that agencies would be unable to enter into a 287(g) memorandum of agreement. The sheriff then responded to the question, addressing the bill’s requirements and clarifying his understanding of Representative Ferry’s concern.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Joe Alfieri was recorded as voting yes.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum asked related questions about the bill’s impact fee provisions, specifically why cities cannot opt out of collecting impact fees and why counties cannot collect their own fees.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum is referenced in a brief exchange where the witness responds that she cannot answer his question.
Richard Cheatum — Asks whether the law's use of 'may' instead of 'shall' reflects a mutual cooperative agreement.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum is called on during the committee’s discussion of House Bill 626 and argues that the constitutional concerns raised are credible and could have been resolved locally. He opposes the pending motion, offers a substitute motion to return the bill to the sponsor, then withdraws that approach and instead moves to hold House Bill 626 in committee. Later references acknowledge his concern and record his vote and opposition in the final committee action on the bill.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum was recognized and then questioned the bill’s 287(g) language, arguing that the wording appears to require rather than merely allow local law enforcement agencies to participate. He raised concerns that even very small cities and counties with limited law enforcement resources would be forced into the program and its training requirements, and he followed up by noting that some agencies already participate in 287(g) and seeking confirmation.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Hawkins responded to Representative Collier's question.
Richard Cheatum — Recorded as voting no.
Kent Marmon — Representative Kent Marmon asked Representative Alfieri why a city would not collect the impact fee.
Kent Marmon — Recorded as voting no.
Kent Marmon — Representative Marmon responds that law enforcement is charged with enforcing the law and says he will support the bill.
Kent Marmon — He states that law enforcement is paid to enforce the law and says he will support the bill.
Kent Marmon — Recorded as voting yes.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler was called on for questions and asked whether the bill includes an enforcement mechanism, then followed up by questioning why such a mechanism was not included. He was also directly addressed by name in the response.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler responded to the procedural clarification and then stated his support for advancing House Bill 626 by making a motion to move it to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Recorded as voting no.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler is introduced as the next questioner and then asks follow-up questions about whether the sheriff already participates in the 287(g) program and whether joining it would provide additional resources to help address serious criminals and protect the public.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler was called on during the House Bill 659 discussion, praised the bill and asked for a comment and motion, argued that the bill was needed in precarious times, and moved to send House Bill 659 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The exchange concluded later with his vote recorded as yes.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt is addressed as Chair during the exchange.
Barbara Ehardt — As Chair, manages the procedural request regarding withdrawal of the substitute motion.
Barbara Ehardt — Recorded as voting no; name appears as 'Ehart' in the transcript.
Barbara Ehardt — The speaker says she is representing Barbara Ehardt and identifies herself as being from District 33, Idaho Falls, Bonneville County.
Barbara Ehardt — Thanked for her work on the issue.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt, acting as chair, repeatedly manages the committee’s questioning by ruling one question out of order as beyond the scope of the bill, then allowing some latitude while warning against repeated questioning, and finally stating she will not permit any more repeat questions.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Bruce Skaug asked Representative Alfieri how the bill came about and what problem it is intended to solve, followed by a brief response that was misrecognized in the transcript as addressing 'Representative Scott.'
Bruce Skaug — The Chair asks whether he has a follow-up question.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug questioned Representative Alfieri about the bill’s constitutionality and then followed up by saying that, while he recognized a real problem that needs to be addressed, he did not believe the bill as written was the right way to solve it.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug was mentioned in the voting record for the motion: he was first recorded as voting yes, and later identified among the members opposed to the due pass motion, reflecting his participation in the same vote-related discussion.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Bruce Skaug was recorded as voting yes.
Jennifer Reby — Jennifer Reby, a Payette County commissioner, testified about the county's growth-related infrastructure strain and its effort to adopt impact fees through a citizens committee and public hearings. She explained that the county needed a new jail, that the jail was overcrowded, and that the county lost nearly a million dollars in jail-related impact fees because cities with their own building departments would not collect and remit the fees. She clarified that each impact fee is tied to a specific capital improvement plan and said the county's fees were designated for the jail and ambulance district, while fire districts outside cities were able to collect fees successfully.
Jon Weber — Representative Jon Weber asks what the impact fees are used for in this situation, prompting clarification for the committee about how the fees are applied in the commissioner’s particular case.
Jon Weber — Called on next to speak.
Jon Weber — Speaks in support of the discussion, drawing on experience as a county commissioner and describing the impact fee issue.
Jon Weber — Continues explaining that the city is being asked to collect the fee for the county and that it benefits constituents.
Jon Weber — Says constitutional issues may exist but are not the issue before the committee, and supports the original motion.
Jon Weber — Recorded as voting no.
Jon Weber — Mentioned as having experience as a commissioner and being invited to the meeting.
Jon Weber — Mentioned again as having commissioner experience and being invited to the meeting.