Jordan Redman — Was thanked by the speaker in a transition into the next witness.
Jordan Redman — Was thanked for the opportunity to testify.
Jordan Redman — Introduced himself as representing District 3 in Kootenai County and began presenting House Bill 801 on religious lands.
Jordan Redman — Explains that the 40-year lease threshold was intended to ensure long-term mission continuity.
Jordan Redman — Explains the obstacles were mostly time constraints and the number of issues to work through, and says the bill is meant to streamline the process.
Jordan Redman — Says the parking language is intended to prevent a 'poison pill' and not to eliminate parking entirely.
Jordan Redman — Says he is open to amendments to the building-height language.
Jordan Redman — States he is amendable to amendments.
Jordan Redman — Says the bill is not intended to interfere with FAA guidelines and cites Coeur d'Alene as an example.
Jordan Redman — Says he expects amendments and remains open to them.
Jordan Redman — Explained that the bill defines the relevant entity as a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).
Jordan Redman — Was initially thought to be presenting House Bill 828, but it was clarified that Representative Hostettler would present it.
Jordan Redman — The committee directed questions to Representative Hostettler after his presentation.
Jordan Redman — The chair is managing the motion and discussion.
Jordan Redman — Chair Jordan Redman briefly addressed concerns by defending the bill as a responsible use of public funds and a way to support recruitment and advance the best medicine and education in Idaho. He then stated that a motion was properly before the committee to send House Bill 828 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation, and the exchange concluded with the gavel being returned to Chairman Redman as the meeting wrapped up.
Brent Crane — Brent Crane introduced House Bill 721 and explained that it expands the 30-day initial plan review timeline to all public works projects. The discussion then covered what initial plan review entails, including checks for compliance with building codes, zoning ordinances, and safety regulations, and noted that the bill would save taxpayers money. Members thanked and praised Crane for bringing the legislation, then asked him to provide a closing statement. The exchange concluded with confirmation that Crane will carry House Bill 721 on the floor.
Brent Crane — Representative Crane raises concern that the requested information may be proprietary to insurers. He is then addressed in the response, and the discussion concludes with a reply that there is nothing wrong with the requested approach.
Brent Crane — Referenced as having raised the example of adding a pond and other mitigation measures.
Brent Crane — Representative Crane’s questioning is referenced as part of the ongoing discussion about carrier rate models, with the conversation returning to his earlier questions in the context of free-market concerns.
Brent Crane — Brent Crane questioned Mr. Hall about the reported $1,234 increase, asking whether it was annual or monthly, and then followed up by asking if the lack of communication corresponded to a monthly increase of about $100–$102 and whether Mr. Hall had switched providers.
Brent Crane — Moved to hold House Bill 618 in committee.
Brent Crane — Moved to hold House Bill 801 subject to call of the chair so amendments can be worked out.
Joe Palmer — Cited as one of the committee members whose input led to expanding the bill.
Joe Palmer — His free-market question is being addressed in the discussion about whether insurers would competitively provide risk-grading information.
Joe Palmer — Rep. Palmer asked follow-up questions about the mobile cigar setup in House Bill 817, specifically seeking examples of real-world locations and clarification on perimeter and smoking-distance requirements. The mention of Palmer then appears again immediately after the committee vote on the bill, keeping the discussion within the same HB 817 sequence.
Jason Monks — Jason Monks was referenced as one of the committee members whose input helped expand the bill, then he spoke in support of the measure and formally moved to send House Bill 721 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Richard Cheatum — Asked what is involved in an initial plan review.
Richard Cheatum — Addressed by name in the discussion of the initial plan review.
Richard Cheatum — Referenced in connection with a question about initial plan review.
Richard Cheatum — Referenced as having worked on the process as well.
Richard Cheatum — The speaker refers to the next closing statement being made by the gentleman from North Idaho, identified in the transcript as Representative Sauter.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum was identified as the next questioner and then asked whether a cigar garden could overlap with a beer garden, continuing the same discussion about the relationship between the two types of gardens.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum asks follow-up questions about why certain land in the area could not be used and whether the bill’s airport-related language is meant to exempt airports from restrictions, likely to avoid FAA-related limitations.
Richard Cheatum — Asked whether being a religious organization and being a 501(c)(3) must go together for the bill to apply.
Richard Cheatum — Was asked whether he wanted to be recorded during the vote.
Sean Shupak — Sean Shupak testified on behalf of the Idaho Associated General Contractors in support of the bill. He said the legislation would improve efficiency and reduce regulatory burden by allowing bidding before final plan approval for school construction, and he explained that it also establishes a 30-day initial plan review timeline for all public works. He added that there is no known opposition to the measure, and the exchange concluded with thanks for his testimony.
Mark Sauter — Introduced House Bill 618 and described it as addressing property insurance non-renewals and cancellations.
Steve Berch — Representative Church is called on for follow-up remarks and then explains that the bill is intended to improve transparency around insurance policies that use fire-risk or catastrophic models. In the ensuing discussion, he is referenced as the person who calls the information the 'ingredients,' and he is asked how the data would help determine rates. Church responds that the information is a first step and could support an appeal if mitigation efforts have been made.
Steve Berch — Representative Church responded to questions by distinguishing non-renewal from cancellation and arguing that homeowners should understand why they are labeled a fire risk. He noted that fire risk was cited as the main reason for non-renewals and premium increases in Idaho, questioned why the highest increases were occurring in places like Boise, Meridian, and Caldwell if fire risk was the rationale, and raised concerns about the modeling behind those determinations. When asked what remedy exists for a homeowner whose mitigation efforts are not enough, he pointed to the remedies listed in the bill and referred the matter to Representative Sauter. He also briefly described his background working with fire service in North Idaho and writing reports for insurers about fire district response, reinforcing his familiarity with the issue.
Steve Berch — Representative Harris questions the Department of Insurance data-collection provisions, and the response follows up by clarifying that the issue is not about fees, directly addressing Harris’s concerns and continuing the same discussion.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch comments on the bill’s impact on carriers and the committee’s role in deciding the issue, adding that low rates alone do not ensure coverage if policies are not renewed.
Steve Berch — Requested to be recorded on the vote; transcript says 'Birch,' likely referring to Berch.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri questions how the data will help determine insurance rates and follows up by asking whether an agent should be able to explain how mitigation steps could improve those rates. The exchange centers on how insurance data and mitigation information can be used to understand or communicate rate impacts.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri raised a concern about a homeowner who had taken extensive mitigation measures, such as clearing the area and installing a separate water system, but was still being treated as high-risk and facing premiums that did not come down. He asked what remedy exists when the data is presented but the insurer still disagrees. In response, it was suggested that other carriers may be available and that some relevant data is tracked through the state website.
Vito Barbieri — Addressed directly regarding the policyholder/applicant mitigation language.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri was called on and then questioned Mr. Kane about the insurance company, asking him to clarify whether it is a reciprocal insurer and what that term means.
Vito Barbieri — Opposed the bill, citing concerns about including all kinds of insurance and the practical limits of regulating rates.
Vito Barbieri — Asked what an unauthorized cigar is.
Jeff Cornilles — The chair is addressed as 'Mr. Chairman' in the exchange.
David Cannon — Representative Church responds to questions about insurance risk modeling and disclosure, explaining that many Idahoans do not have an agent and insurers do not readily provide risk modeling. He confirms that other states require website disclosure, says the model metrics are not proprietary, and reiterates that mitigation-related model factors should not be treated as proprietary if they support good policy and help prevent wildfire damage.