Kent Marmon — Asks why the legislation is limited to fire and ambulance service districts and whether other entities could be included.
Kent Marmon — Representative Sauter was thanked and referenced as someone who would be contacted and potentially carry the bill, then introduced House Bill 767 and explained its purpose. He said fire districts that use development impact fees must follow strict statutory procedures, that the bill clarifies what those fees may be used for, and that it would allow impact fee funds to cover 50% of fire apparatus replacement costs to help districts serving new growth areas. He emphasized that the funds cannot be used for personnel.
Kent Marmon — Voted no in the roll call.
Chief Teminski — States that there is currently no enforcement mechanism because the fee is technically the city or county's fee, and says that is why the board wants authority.
Kirk Carpenter — Introduces himself as Fire Chief at Nampa Fire Department and president of Idaho Fire Chiefs.
Kirk Carpenter — Kirk Carpenter, president of the Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, testified about how rapid growth in Nampa has increased fire service demand from about 1,000 calls a year to 12,000 calls across six stations. He explained that this growth is putting more wear on apparatus and emphasized the need for long-term life-cycle planning to keep equipment lasting 18 to 20 years. He concluded by thanking the committee and offering to answer questions.
Kurt Carpenter — Kurt Carpenter, Fire Chief of Nampa and president of Idaho Fire Chiefs, explains that the bill is important to fire chiefs statewide because it would streamline the current intergovernmental and DFAC review process for growth-related impact fees. He describes how his district has worked through city and county representatives and notes that multiple boards and repeated meeting cancellations have caused delays, including a CIP presentation that was canceled for the third time. Carpenter argues the bill would provide a major efficiency improvement while preserving the same approved plan and fee amounts, and he closes by urging support for the measure.
Chief 2 — The chair thanks the second chief witness after testimony concludes.
Chief 1 — The chair notes that Chief 1 already answered the questions.
Josh Wheeler — Moved that House Bill 766 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler questions whether the bill would still improve efficiency if impact fees could move downward as well as upward. He then makes the motion and follows up in support of it, arguing that the bill would streamline the process, improve efficiency, better help elected officials serve citizens, and reduce the need for multiple meetings by consolidating them into one.
Josh Wheeler — Voted yes in the roll call.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Rasor sought clarification on the bill’s impact fee structure, asking whether it would replace existing impact fees or add an additional fee on top of fees already assessed by other entities. He also questioned whether existing fees would simply be redirected to the fire department rather than creating a new charge.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Cornel Rasor asked how a reluctant city or other entity could be compelled to collect the new impact fee, referencing a prior jail-related bill and seeking clarification on enforcement.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Rasor thanked the presenters and said he appreciated the explanation. He expressed support for a slower review process and the motion, but raised concern about the lack of enforcement. He ultimately said he would support the motion for now, though he might change his vote on the floor and planned to contact Representative Sauter.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Rasor expressed caution about advancing new legislation too quickly, saying he is sensitive to the chiefs' and Representative Sauter's concerns but wants to see how the previous bill performs first. A later speaker then said she agrees with Representative Rasor's cautious approach.
Cornel Rasor — Voted no in the roll call.
Chief Carpenter (Chief 2) — Referenced as having explained that some entities are still using 2018 fees because they have not adopted the 2023 fees.
Chief Carpenter — Referenced as saying some entities in his district still use 2018 fees because they have not adopted the 2023 fees.
Chief One — Referenced as having said that impact fees across the Treasure Valley vary by no more than $100.
Chief Two — Referenced as being in districts that already have these fees in place.
Kelly Packer — The chair noted that Kelly Packer should be invited up to clarify the bill, and then Kelly Packer, Executive Director for the Association of Idaho Cities, came forward and began explaining how the bill would affect existing impact fee authority.
Mrs. Packer — Addressed respectfully while asking for statewide impact information.
Ms. Packer — Ms. Packer was asked about the statewide and district-level impact fee process and initially said she needed to check on the statewide count. She then explained that the bill is intended to fix the problem of multiple approvals for a single impact fee, so a fire district would have one consistent fee process across its communities. She confirmed this would improve efficiency whenever the impact fee changes, whether up or down, and the committee thanked her for the clarification.
Ms. Packer — Was praised for explaining the bill in layman's terms.
Bruce Skaug — During a continuous closing exchange, Representative Sauter is referenced multiple times due to transcription errors while responding to questions and clarifying that the bill does not address forced collection. The mentions all belong to the same uninterrupted discussion and can be treated as one moment.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug was referenced in connection with Representative Sauter’s explanation of the bill, specifically the discussion of limits on using impact fees for existing capital and related concerns about how those fees are applied.
Bruce Skaug — Voted yes in the roll call.
Jeff Cornilles — A brief humorous exchange in which Representative Cornilles notes that his name was pronounced correctly for the first time this year, and the follow-up confirms the joke by thanking the speaker for pronouncing it correctly.
Jeff Cornilles — Appears in the roll call as voting 'Yes' and is likely the Vice Chair.
Fire Chief Timmonski — Introduced as the first testifier.
Greg Timminsky — Testified in support of the bill, explaining it would allow use of impact fees for 50% of fire apparatus replacement.
Chief Timminsky — The chair asks for questions for the chief after his testimony.
Chief Timminsky — The discussion centers on Chief Timminsky and House Bill 389. The exchange begins with reference to his view that the bill does not increase impact fees, then shifts to whether the bill is needed. The chair notes that the question is difficult to answer and may be out of bounds, and Timminsky responds that the question is treading on light ground and should be addressed in closing. He then explains the bill’s practical effect on his department, saying House Bill 389 reduced his budget authority by $2.65 million, which affected staffing and apparatus purchases.
Ken Burgess — Ken Burgess was called to testify and then began his remarks, identifying himself as representing the Idaho Home Builders Association and introducing opposition to the bill.
Chief Tominsky — Referenced as possibly remembering the earlier discussion.
Mr. Burgess — Was asked to wrap up his remarks and was pressed on how much of a replacement vehicle’s cost is attributable to growth.
Mr. Burgess — Opposed the bill, arguing that the growth-attribution calculation is too fuzzy and subjective.
Mr. Burgess — The committee is asked whether there are further questions for him.
Mr. Burgess — The committee continues questioning him about the prior legislation and current concerns.
Mr. Burgess — Said the previous bill resolves the earlier issue and that the fire districts can collect appropriately calculated impact fees under it.
Mr. Burgess — Explained that the previous bill allowed fire districts to collect appropriately calculated impact fees more simply and that the builders remained neutral on it.
Mr. Burgess — Said the concern is the concept of replacing existing capital and the slippery slope that could follow.
Mr. Burgess — The chair asks whether there are any remaining questions for him and then asks him to slide over.
Mr. Burgess — A member says they would like to ask Mr. Burgess a question next.
Mr. Burgess — Asked what fire departments are supposed to do if they cannot keep equipment replaced.
Mr. Burgess — Said growth generally pays for itself, but small fast-growing taxing districts may not be able to increase budgets enough.
Mr. Burgess — Asked for his opinion on whether existing statute limits equipment expenditures.
Mr. Burgess — Said current law does not allow impact fee expenses to replace capital equipment.
Mr. Burgess — Agreed fire districts are correct that current law does not allow the use right now and praised their effort to solve it.