Richard Cheatum — Asked whether the bill's nonprofit eligibility language would include more than chambers of commerce.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum argued that the main problem with the funding is the restrictions on where the dollars can be spent. He explained that these limits reduce the local benefit of the funds and noted that, although the money supports statewide economic activity and tourism, it does not necessarily flow back into the community where the organization is located.
Richard Cheatum — Called on for questions after the sponsor's presentation.
Richard Cheatum — Raised concern about how counties would verify whether someone has a homestead exemption in another state.
Richard Cheatum — Invited to ask a follow-up question.
Richard Cheatum — Asked how many other states have a homestead exemption.
Richard Cheatum — Called on for further questions after the exchange.
Richard Cheatum — Made the motion to send House Bill 885 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum asked Chairman Cannon whether the process exists to implement the bill and specifically whether the Tax Commission can meet a July 1 implementation date or would need more time to put the bill into effect.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks introduces himself as the sponsor of House Bill 861 and explains the bill’s purpose, focusing on how the proposal relates to university budgets and the impact of grant funding. He then concludes his opening remarks and answers a question by noting that grant dollars are fungible and would support the institutions’ overall budgets.
Britt Raybould — The chair recognizes Representative Raibould/Raybould as the next questioner.
Britt Raybould — Asks whether the bill would cause a fund shift by replacing dollars institutions already spend on recruitment.
Britt Raybould — Notes that prior grant recipients had specific planned activities such as festivals and seasonal events.
Britt Raybould — Asked whether educational institutions are already partnering with local organizations for outreach and promotion.
Britt Raybould — Continued questioning whether educational institutions are already partnering with local organizations and noted trust in Department of Commerce review.
Britt Raybould — Addressed in the exchange.
Britt Raybould — The speaker tag appears to refer to Representative Birch, likely a transcription error for a member name in the committee.
Britt Raybould — The transcript says 'Representative Birch,' which appears to be a misrecognition in the question queue.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould introduced and explained House Bill 885, which codifies and clarifies homestead exemption requirements. She described how the bill requires documentation to match the exemption claimed, addresses county confusion in applying current language, and allows alternative proof such as an Idaho income tax return with a matching address for residents who cannot easily obtain a driver’s license or state ID. She also explained residency and maintenance requirements, including exceptions for active-duty military and religious missions, and discussed how Idaho law already ties primary identification and vehicle registration to a person’s primary residence. In closing, she argued the bill uses existing code definitions, is not a new ‘gotcha’ for candidates, is intended to ensure the benefit goes only to Idahoans with primary residences, and clarified that any enforcement issue would arise only if someone knowingly submitted a false attestation after the law takes effect.
David Cannon — During this portion of the meeting, David Cannon is repeatedly addressed as Chairman or Mr. Chairman while members speak to him and respond to him in the course of the same ongoing exchange. The references are all part of a single continuous discussion involving Cannon and several other representatives, with no substantive change in topic.
David Cannon — David Cannon is repeatedly referenced as the majority leader during a continuous discussion, including remarks about his position and multiple mentions of him as the 'good majority leader,' along with a comment that the speaker would not ask him to handle a particular task.
David Cannon — Presided as Mr. Chairman and granted unanimous consent to refer to pending legislation.
David Cannon — Addressed as Chairman Cannon.
David Cannon — Closed the exchange and recognized the next questioner.
David Cannon — Addressed as Chairman Cannon.
David Cannon — Addressed as Chairman Cannon.
David Cannon — David Cannon introduced Senate Bill 1345 as the representative from Legislative District 30, then answered questions about implementation, explaining that the Tax Commission had input into the bill language and was comfortable carrying it out, including the July 1, 2026 effective date. The discussion then concluded with closing remarks and adjournment of the committee meeting.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Monks (Jeff Cornilles) engages in a sustained committee discussion defending the bill and explaining its funding structure. He argues that taxpayer dollars already support nonprofit tourism promotion and that universities should be allowed to apply for similar grants. He clarifies that the 2% bed tax revenue goes through the Department of Commerce, explains that the department is an executive branch agency, and describes chambers of commerce as business groups that can receive tourism or industry grants. He also notes that the statute effectively contains one fund that has been administratively divided, explains that the hotel tax revenue is dedicated only because the legislature designated it that way, and confirms that the bill would allow applicants to seek grants without transferring funds directly. The exchange ends with closing remarks before the committee moves on to House Bill 861.
Vito Barbieri — Vito Barbieri questioned how to place guardrails on economic development spending and whether the funds are being used appropriately. He then followed up by asking whether all of the 2% bed tax is going into the fund, repeating the question to press for clarification on the full allocation of the tax revenue.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri argued that the bill may not create new tourism spending and could simply shift money elsewhere, using Boise State as an example. He was later referenced in connection with that tourism point, and then returned to the discussion to agree that universities will spend money pursuing grants, identifying that as a drawback of the bill.
Vito Barbieri — Requested to question Representative Raibould about the motion.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the bill could go to general orders so the date could be changed to January 1, 2027.
Vito Barbieri — Was asked whether he wanted to be recorded as voting no.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts questioned the proposal, first confirming that it involves a 2% hotel bed tax and diversion of that revenue, then following up by citing a Boise Dev article and challenging whether universities truly need the money, referencing Boise State's fundraising.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts raised concerns about the impact of reducing tourism-promotion funds on his rural district, which includes Hells Canyon and many outfitters and guides. He said he could not support the bill because of the potential harm to constituents in the outfitting and guiding industry and warned that cutting the fund could hurt tourism and the broader local economy.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts raised a constitutional question about whether the bill could create ex post facto concerns, noting that ex post facto issues are typically criminal in nature and asking whether Representative Raybould viewed it as a problem. The exchange continued into the response addressing the issue in terms of knowledge at the time of certification.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd asked who appoints or elects the body being discussed, noting he was not familiar with it and seeking clarification on whether its members are appointed or elected.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Charlie Shepherd was called on for questions and asked why the bill includes references to candidacies and elections in a homeowners exemption measure. He then sought clarification on whether voting and being a candidate are treated the same for the bill’s purposes.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon asked for a list of grants awarded under the program and the amounts, then followed up by questioning which grant fund the proposal would use and noting that the Department of Commerce website appears to show multiple grant funds.
John Gannon — John Gannon argued that the grant process will be competitive, with organizations submitting proposals and the best one being selected. He said he does not fear that others will automatically lose out and indicated he wants to understand where the money is currently going before the bill reaches the floor. The discussion also included a brief acknowledgment that he made a good point.
John Gannon — John Gannon raised concerns about a potential proration problem in the bill for people who move after receiving an exemption, and followed up by asking how the issue would work if someone moved before the filing period.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Jerald Raymond asked whether hotel-tax revenue should be considered dedicated dollars or dedicated funds rather than general fund dollars, continued the same line of inquiry as the discussion progressed, and then concluded by saying he had no further questions.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Jerald Raymond expressed concern about repurposing dedicated tax revenues, arguing that taxpayers already bear multiple layers of taxation and that dedicated funds should not be redirected to subsidize expenses that ought to be covered through general taxation.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Manwaring's bill and prior discussion were referenced as pending legislation and as context that informed the response, indicating a single ongoing discussion about the same legislative matter.
Jack Husty — Named as the next testifier on House Bill 861.
Jack Hurdy / Jack Husty — Identified himself as representing the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association and said he lives in Boise.
Jack Hurdy — Jack Hurdy testified in opposition to House Bill 861, arguing it is not an appropriate vehicle to transfer tourism-related funds to higher education. He emphasized that the current funding structure supports a large travel and tourism industry, including outfitters and guides, generates significant revenue and job growth, and helps sustain rural Idaho businesses. He concluded by asking the committee to hold the bill in committee, and the chair then thanked him and closed the exchange.
Jeff Ehlers — Moved that House Bill 861 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers was called on for questions and then said he liked the concept of the proposal, referencing prior work on the issue. He asked the presenter to explain why an income tax return can be used in place of a driver's license, noting that a driver's license had been useful for database checks and seeking the reasoning behind allowing a tax return as an alternative.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers was briefly asked whether he wanted to be recorded as voting no, and then he moved that Senate Bill 1345 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.