David Cannon — Chair Cannon is referenced as part of the committee hearing being called to order.
David Cannon — Chair Cannon says he will present RS 33-260 and temporarily hand the gavel to Vice Chair Weber.
David Cannon — Chair Cannon introduces himself for the record.
David Cannon — Representative Cannon identifies himself, his district, and introduces RS 33-260.
David Cannon — Cannon is thanked after presenting the RS.
David Cannon — Cannon clarifies that 'to levy such tax' should not be added and that Section 5 should remain unchanged.
David Cannon — Cannon is asked whether the Idaho Association of Counties reviewed the legislation.
David Cannon — He was thanked for presenting the measure and then told there were no further lights.
David Cannon — The chair was addressed as the next agenda item was announced.
David Cannon — The chair invited Representative Furman to introduce himself and present House Bill 734.
David Cannon — The chairman was thanked at the start of the presentation.
David Cannon — The committee was thanked for hearing the bill.
David Cannon — Representative Furman introduced himself and began explaining the bill.
David Cannon — The chair opened the floor for questions.
David Cannon — The chair recognized the question and the response.
David Cannon — The chairman was addressed during the exchange.
David Cannon — During this segment, Chairman Cannon is repeatedly addressed as the chair while the committee exchange continues. He acknowledges comments and motions, thanks a witness, asks whether there are questions for the witness, and then continues to manage the floor and follow-up discussion as chair.
David Cannon — Chairman David Cannon was repeatedly acknowledged and thanked by witnesses and a representative during the hearing, including thanks to him and the committee after testimony and a brief acknowledgment from the chair in response to another speaker.
Jon Weber — Vice Chair Jon Weber takes over the gavel and then directs Representative Cannon to follow the proper procedure and introduce himself before proceeding.
Jon Weber — Chairman Jon Weber is addressed during a procedural exchange about whether the motion needs to be changed, and then the meeting is returned to the chair after the motion result is received.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould moves to introduce RS 33-260 and clarifies that the motion excludes the changes distributed in the draft related to Section 5.
Britt Raybould — Representative Raybould moved to send House Bill 734 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould questioned the bill’s effects on overlapping districts and whether it could allow agencies to leave an urban renewal district before paying their proportionate share of benefits received. She also asked about how contractual obligations and other revenue sources factor into a district’s ability to opt out. After the discussion, she moved to send House Bill 670 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Britt Raybould — Britt Raybould is recognized and then asks why the legislature should wait for litigation to run its course if the filings already show a need for clarification; she argues that if the evidence indicates a language change would resolve the issue, the legislature should act now rather than defer to the court system.
Britt Raybould — Representative Birch expressed hesitation to support the motion, citing concerns from testimony and written materials, and said she reserved her final decision for the House floor because she believed the bill was not addressing the underlying problem. Representative Raybould then responded that legislative intent matters, argued the bill does not change the intent of last session’s action, described it as a clarification of the body’s prior agreement regarding taxing districts leaving an urban renewal district, and warned that leaving the issue unresolved could create conflict and more litigation among taxing districts. She concluded that clarifying the law is appropriate and consistent with the legislature’s tax policy goals.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks asks Chairman Cannon for clarification on Section 5, specifically whether the phrase 'to levy such tax' should remain in the bill language.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks introduced House Bill 670 and explained how urban renewal districts and allocation areas work: property tax growth in a designated area is used to finance improvements through bonds or loans, with the expectation that redevelopment will raise property values. He described how this can redirect incremental tax revenue away from other taxing districts such as fire, EMS, police, library, and county districts, even though those services still must be provided in the area. Monks noted that fire districts can opt out of a new urban renewal area to preserve their revenue growth, and he emphasized that the bill does not change the law substantively but clarifies last year’s legislation so districts can receive their money. In response to questions, he said he did not know the exact number of overlapping districts, would try to obtain that information, and added that highway districts may also be able to opt out, though he was not fully certain and would verify it. He further explained that fire districts do not pay money into the URD; rather, the property tax revenue simply does not flow to them, and he cited concerns from the fire chiefs association and examples of lost revenue to illustrate the issue.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks explained that the bill is meant to clarify the process and definitions around contractual obligations by requiring a written agreement rather than an informal future promise. He argued that fire districts should be able to opt out when appropriate so they can receive revenue to cover increased service demands from new development, and said the legislation is intended to correct how the process has worked and align it with its original intent. He concluded by asking the committee to support the bill and send it to the floor.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Birch is likely a mis-transcription; the questioner asked whether districts are running unnecessary supplemental levies.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepherd asked for revenue numbers.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked what happens when a fire district withdraws and whether that creates a financial gain.
John Gannon — John Gannon asks whether a fire protection district that contributes revenue to an urban renewal district can withdraw and be required to reimburse only the portion actually tied to an urban renewal district bond, rather than the full amount, and whether the district can proportion out the payment accordingly.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon was referenced as having asked a question about equipment from urban renewal districts.
John Gannon — Said he is concerned about taxing districts suing each other because it wastes property tax dollars.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch asks whether anyone is signed up for public testimony, and the exchange continues with the same procedural question before yielding to public testimony.
Kelly Packer — Kelly Packer, Executive Director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testifies in opposition to House Bill 670 and asks the committee to hold it. She argues that local taxing districts are already struggling financially and that the bill would create winners and losers by further limiting urban renewal and related financing tools. She explains that some fire districts were allowed to opt out in past situations while others were denied, notes that the bill is unclear about which definitions govern contractual obligations and indebtedness, and says urban renewal was expanded by the legislature for economic development and remains important for city development. She warns that excluding more entities from the tool reduces incremental financing opportunities for needed improvements and that the tool has been eroded over time, urging lawmakers to preserve its integrity and keep the bill in committee.
Vito Barbieri — Is recognized to ask questions of Ms. Packer.
Vito Barbieri — Asks whether other districts like police should also be exempted from urban renewal processes.
Vito Barbieri — Asked how fire districts can help pay for the extra burden placed on them.
Vito Barbieri — Asked Ben Lehman to clarify the issues being litigated.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri is called on and asks whether the bill is intended both to increase funding for the fire department and to address the litigation issues, or whether the bill is meant to do one despite the other.
Ms. Packer — Ms. Packer explained how urban renewal affects property tax revenue and the burden on fire districts, noting that residents’ taxes in the area do not continue funding services in the same way but that revenue can increase as improvements are made. She added that fire districts may have had opportunities to seek funding for needs such as new fire trucks through urban renewal revenue and other discussions with the relevant body, and she suggested House Bill 436 reflected the seriousness of withdrawal requests. When asked a further question about the mechanics of urban renewal districts, she deferred to someone who directly runs such a district because she did not fully understand all of the moving parts.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers took the floor after Ms. Packer’s testimony and asked about conflicting or competing definitions of contractual obligations in the bill text.
Ben Lehman — Ben Lehman, speaking for the Eagle Urban Renewal Agency, asked the committee to hold the bill rather than advance it. He argued the bill would not solve the underlying problem and would instead worsen litigation, noting that the agency is already involved in a lawsuit stemming from last year’s legislation. He urged lawmakers to let the court process proceed before changing the statute, and explained that the central issue in the case is whether contractual obligations exist, with the fire district having sued EURA after a denied withdrawal request.
Mr. Lehman — Mr. Lehman explained that the lawsuit concerns whether certain funds are obligated and must be returned, noting that the issue being litigated is the purpose and extent of the obligation. The committee then concluded his questioning and thanked him for his testimony.
Megan Conrad — Megan Conrad, an attorney at Elam and Burke, testified in opposition to House Bill 670 on behalf of the Redevelopment Association of Idaho and the Garden City Urban Renewal Agency. She argued that the bill does not clarify the law and instead adds ambiguity that could lead to additional litigation, particularly around how outstanding bonds, contractual obligations, and other indebtedness are calculated. She pointed to language about revenue allocation proceeds from “other sources” as creating a second calculation and noted that debt service and balloon payments make the obligation analysis more complicated. She also explained that the bill functions as a carve-out related to fire and EMS district budgets rather than fixing broader deficiencies in the urban renewal statute, and she referenced lessons from House Bill 436, saying it worked for some districts but not for later-year districts nearing termination. She concluded by suggesting further discussion to make the tool fair and said she was available for questions.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatham said he generally sides with the urban renewal district and believes the legislature should not interfere with ongoing litigation or "put our thumb on the scale." He referenced a prior example where a bill was passed only after litigation was resolved and argued the same approach should apply here. He concluded by stating he would vote against the bill, and later references acknowledged his caution about litigation and recorded his vote as a nay.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Cornilles spoke about his concern that the bill would further erode urban renewal tools, which he sees as important for building a long-term tax base. Although he understands the reasons behind the bill, he argued that weakening the tool for short-term gain would defeat its purpose and said he was probably going to vote no. His vote was then recorded as a nay.