Seth Grigg — Executive director of the Idaho Association of Counties; begins testimony on the bill.
Seth Grigg — Referenced as having made a similar point earlier.
Greg Timminsky — The next witness is called to testify.
Greg Timmonski — Greg Timmonski of Middleton, representing the Star Fire District and the Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, testifies in favor of the bill. He explains that Star Fire District has repeatedly failed to reach the supermajority threshold for levy increases, making the bill a step in the right direction. He says he is not addressing the city and county initiative provisions, but supports the measure as beneficial for public safety in Idaho.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced indirectly as Representative Moyle? No—this section names Representative Moyle, who is not in the expected member list, so the reference is preserved without an ID.
Jerald Raymond — Recorded as voting no; transcript says 'Representing Raymond.'
David Cannon — As chair, thanked the witness and opened the floor for questions.
David Cannon — As chair, invited the witness to testify on House Bill 842.
David Cannon — Chair David Cannon indicated that Representative Cornilles had spoken to him in advance about making the motion and that he wanted the bill to move forward with only a brief delay. Cannon said he had no objection to the motion, had no problem with additional testimony being submitted, and suggested the bill be held in committee for a time certain to allow that further testimony.
David Cannon — The chair, identified in the transcript as David Cannon, was called on and recorded as voting yes. The transcript contains two near-duplicate references to this same vote, likely due to a name transcription variation, but both indicate the chair’s affirmative vote.
Kelly Packer — Kelly Packer, executive director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified in opposition to the bill and explained that the association had originally sought repeal of House Bill 389 but later shifted to seeking fixes. She outlined requested changes, including using the previous year’s levy rate, adjusting population-based caps, and restoring annexation/new construction values to 100%. She argued that the bill’s impact is broader than claimed because Tax Commission data only shows districts that would have exceeded the cap, not projects that were denied or never built. While acknowledging the proposal would improve conditions for many cities, she said many small cities and commercial projects would still be constrained by the 15% cap. She emphasized that foregone is an important fiscal tool, warned that losing it would worsen the problem, and said the association appreciated the levy-rate and 2% foregone provisions but still opposed the bill overall. In response to questions, she explained that the same cap affects small and large cities very differently, proposed removing the extra cap for districts at 25,000 population or less, and described unsuccessful compromise proposals using 10,000/30,000 population thresholds. She concluded that even the adopted 30,000-and-under threshold still leaves many small cities unable to approve basic growth, sometimes even a single house, without exceeding the cap.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd asked Kelly Packer to clarify her concerns about the initiative language and sought more specific details about those concerns.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Shepherd/Shepard was recorded as voting yes in the roll call, with the transcript showing a minor spelling inconsistency in the member’s name.
Russ Hendricks — Russ Hendricks testified on behalf of Idaho Farm Bureau members in support of House Bill 842. He introduced himself, thanked Speaker Moyle for bringing the bill forward, and explained that his testimony focused on the initiative language at the end of the bill. He argued that while Idaho law allows local governments to ask voters to approve tax increases, there is no corresponding mechanism for voters to use the same process to reduce taxes. He concluded by reaffirming support for HB 842 and offering to answer questions.
Mr. Hendricks — The representative thanked Mr. Hendricks for his testimony and expressed appreciation for his participation.
Mr. Russell / Mr. Hendricks — The witness is addressed with a slightly garbled name reference.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Jeff Cornilles is recognized and then makes a motion to hold House Bill 842 in committee for a time certain.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Cornilles spoke in support of delaying the motion, explaining that he had not yet received input from his mayor or council and wanted time to consult them, while also referencing former Mayor Rick Hogaboon. Others noted that he had discussed the motion in advance and thanked him for agreeing to a short delay, describing him as sincere in seeking it. The exchange concluded with the vote, in which Cornilles was recorded as voting no.
Richard Cheatum — Was called on as discussion began after the substitute motion.
Richard Cheatum — Roll call vote was requested and granted.
Richard Cheatum — Recorded as voting no; transcript contains a name error.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of the initiative process for city voters and the need for small cities to have help as they grow. He said he was willing to postpone consideration for 24 hours out of respect for the situation in Nampa, but reiterated that he still supported the bill. He later voted yes.
Jon Weber — Cast a no vote in the roll call.
Jeff Ehlers — Recorded as voting yes.
Ted Hill — Recorded as voting yes.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould is referenced in a voting sequence: the transcript shows a call for her vote, followed by a recorded 'No' vote, with the name appearing misspelled in the transcript.
John Shirts — Called for a vote.
Steve Berch — Voted no; the transcript appears to refer to Representative Birch.
Jason Monks — Representative Monks first sought clarification on whether the motion would permit additional testimony the next day or simply move the committee into debate. He then deferred to Speaker Moyle and asked for his view. Later, before the vote, he briefly explained his research, arguing that the local initiative process is statutory rather than constitutional and that changing the statute would avoid constitutional or court-related issues, including concerns about the 1993 ruling. The sequence ends with Monks being recorded as voting yes.
Vito Barbieri — Asked the sponsor to explain how the bill helps property owners, especially existing owners.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri asked for clarification on the legal distinction between lowering taxes through an initiative and the related court case involving budget reductions.
Vito Barbieri — Was recognized to speak next.
Vito Barbieri — Made a substitute motion to send House Bill 842 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Jason Monks — Used as an example of an existing homeowner whose taxes could rise because of nearby growth.