EXCUSED:

He presented a list of the Association of Idaho Cities 2004 Legislative
Priorities, which is attached to these minutes as Attachment “A”. Not all of
these items will be presented in 2004 as legislation.

1. Modernize the public works bidding requirements. This see that bids are
awarded, not merely to the lowest bidder, but to the lowest bidder who does
the best work. They have been working with the contractors on this
legislation. Would like to see competitive bidding statutes for local entities
co-located in the Idaho Code. This legislation will not be ready until the 2005
Legislature.

2. Electrical generating facilities will likely be presented through the
Revenue and Taxation Committee.

3. A performance contracting law was passed two years ago involving state
buildings. This legislation will allow the same law to apply to other public
entities.

4. Adoption of the 2003 versions of the International Building Codes will be
introduced in the Business Committee legislation.

5. Statutory provisions for filling vacancies are troublesome and
inconsistent. This legislation is intended to clarify and would be introduced
in the Local Government Committee.

6. A task force has been formed of all appropriate entities to update the
subdivision and platting statute.

Dan Chadwick, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of
Counties, appeared before the committee to present a list of the Priority
Legislation for Idaho’s Counties, which is attached to these minutes as
Attachment “B”.

Mr Chadwick advised he still has the same staff, Tony Poinelli as Deputy
Director, IAC; Maggie Mahoney and Kerry Ellen Elliot, Policy Analysts for the
IAC, but they were attending other meetings. The Idaho Association of
Counties works with and provides education and training to all elected
county officials.

The legislation concerning Ambulance District Funding, Enhanced Revenue
for Alcohol Related Indigent Claims, and Deferred Tax on Forest Land, will
all be introduced in the Revenue and Taxation Committee.

Mail Ballot Precincts legislation will be introduced in the State Affairs
Committee.

The legislation the Local Government Committee will look at involves “Full
Disclosure” or legislation that will bring uniformity to the assessment process
by requiring that the actual sales price be disclosed. This would be used as
one of the many tools in the assessment process and would require strict
confidentiality on the part of the county.

EXCUSED:

Rep Ringo stated that in many mobile home parks that are being closed, the
mobile units are older and the tenants have a limited number of choices.
They must bring the unit up to code prior to moving, which is very costly;
they can move them; or they can sell the unit to the landlord. Whichever one
of these choices is elected, it is very difficult to accomplish in 120 days. She
did check into a few other states to see how their code read and did state
that Washington allows one year.

Rep Eskridge did not feel this time frame was out of line. In his area, if
notice is given in late fall, due to the weather, it would be spring or early
summer before all the requirements could be met to make a move to private
property.

Rep Barrett expressed some concern about the change in language under
55-2010, TERMINATIONS (1), which currently reads “Tenancy during the
term of a rental agreement may be terminated by the landlord only”…. The
new language reads “A landlord shall not terminate or fail to renew a tenancy
of a tenant of whatever duration except”…. She stated property owners do
have some rights. She wanted to be assured this legislation did not impact
the rights of the property owner.

Rep Miller supported the legislation, but questioned whether the time frame
might be excessive. She did state, however, that a mobile home park in her
district faced this issue and it took longer than a year to relocate.

Walter Steed, Consultant, supports this legislation. This proposed change
would make county bid notice requirements the same as existing
requirements for Idaho cities. He stated the proposed wording only sets a
minimum time frame and counties can still advertise for thirty (30) days or
longer if they need or desire. In fact, he stated, two weeks was a very short
time frame and, in many cases, a longer time frame would be required.

By law, cities and counties are required to accept the lowest bid. However
they do want the best possible low bid and do not feel this legislation would
negatively impact their clients. With a construction season impacted by
Idaho weather, every day counts in getting projects bid and under
construction so as to not have projects held over until the next spring or
summer.

A shorter bid period can have a positive financial impact by not having to
include more expensive cold weather construction techniques or a winter
shutdown.

Rep Barrett noted that by shortening the minimum time frame for inviting
bids, any extension in time frame is left to discretion of the individual county
or city, as it is not included in the statute language.

EXCUSED:

Representative Sali stated that removing a monument or statue of long
standing is, in his opinion, akin to book burning. He feels it has attained a
certain historical value over the period of time it has been in place. Any
statue or monument deemed to have historical significance and value would
need approval of the Idaho State Historical Society prior to removal.

MOTION

Representative Eskridge spoke in favor of the original motion. He feels this
legislation presents a side he has not thought of before. He feels it has
merit in an area not previously.

Representative Pasley-Stuart spoke in favor of the substitute motion. She
is concerned that the state is getting involved in matters under local control.
She further expressed concern that the fiscal statement was incorrect, that
assistance from the Attorney General would have a fiscal impact.

Representative Sali responded that the Attorney General would only be
involved if his assistance was requested by a political subdivision of the
state. He could not think of an instance where the Attorney General had
been involved, so he felt the fiscal statement was accurate. It is difficult to
anticipate when a lawsuit might be filed and when the Attorney General
would be called on to assist.

SUBSTITUTE
MOTION

2 AYE – Representatives Ringo and Pasley-Stuart

7 NAY – Representatives Collins, Eskridge, Clark

Miller, Bradford, Smylie, and Barrett

An example of this might be a boiler. New boilers are very expensive, but
much more efficient, and would result in significant energy savings.

This legislation corrects an oversight in the legislation passed a few years
ago. It was assumed cities, counties and schools had the same rights as
state agencies, but the uncertainty has led to unnecessary costs and project
delays while the matter has been researched.

This requirement is not in the Statute, but in Session Law. Since 1999,
when the legislation passed on transferable development rights, the IAC has
made an annual report to the legislator. During that time there has been no
significant change or activity.

In the future, should this committee require or want an update or report, the
information would be made available by the IAC.

EXCUSED:

Penalties for noncompliance would be based on an increasing scale for each
day’s neglect beginning with $10.00 on the first through seventh day; $50.00
per day on the eighth through thirtieth day; and $100.00 per day on the thirty-first day and each day thereafter until compliance is met.

Rep Clark missed the hearing on H 612 when it was presented and
questioned how 300 days was arrived at. Rep Ringo responded it was a
result of research of other states and working with the people in her area
who are involved in this situation.

Rep Miller and Rep Clark both expressed concern that 300 days was too
long a period of time. Rep Miller stated she would not support the bill.

Rep Eskridge supported the length of time due to the fact these people
were being asked to move their homes and weather conditions, at least in
his part of the state could require a lengthy period before a move could be
completed.

Rep Smylie asked Rep Eberle if he had discussed this legislation with
the cities and counties. Rep Eberle responded he had not.

The graduated rate would be a maximum 5% tax payable for hotels/motels
located within a one-half mile radius; maximum 4% rate would apply within
a one and one-half mile radius; maximum 3% rate would apply within a three
mile radius; and a maximum rate of 2% would apply to hotels/motels located
beyond a three mile radius.

Rep Smylie felt the radius was too tight and questioned where the
measurements would be calculated, from the center of the facility, from the
edge of the property or just where.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

The intent is to require three publications within a two week period. On page
2, line 16, the twenty-five percent (25%) requirement of registered voters did
not get changed to twenty (20%) as requested in a motion made on sending
RS 14036 to be introduced to print at the meeting held February 12, 2004.
However, Rep Sali stated he would have recommended it stay at twenty-five
(25%).

Rep Clark stated he would prefer seeing all of the proposed amendments
in proper legislative form.

Rep Bayer, a co-sponsor of this legislation stated he felt this legislation
would reach a balance of city needs, growth and private property rights.
Many entities will admit there have been some wrongful moves in annexation
made over the past. He stated the tax difference in some areas might be
five (5%), but probably less in most areas. He feels we need some common
sense representation and this legislation will accomplish that.

Garret Nancolas, Mayor of Caldwell, spoke against this legislation on
behalf of the Association of Idaho Cities. He respects a due process in
annexation, however he felt the fiscal impact statement was incorrect in that
this legislation would require additional publications, which are costly, and
would require an election, which also is costly. He stated most areas do not
use a forced annexation process, but many times are annexed at the request
of the residents of an area. In Caldwell, they were able to help a subdivision
through annexation who had their wells contaminated by nitrate from their
own septic tanks.

There is value in cities being able to plan. The legislation passed two years
ago allows for planning and is good legislation. Part of the need to annex
arises from the fact that it is very costly to run infrastructure around
subdivisions that do not want to be part of the city.

Marlena Belnap of Rexburg, testified in favor of this legislation. She stated
70 families were force-annexed by a City Council and Mayor that didn’t
represent them as county citizens. Her testimony is attached to these
minutes at “Attachment A”. This group has become part of a lawsuit filed
against the State of Idaho on the annexation law.

Nyle Fulmer, City Councilman, Rexburg, spoke in opposition to this
legislation. He stated that in response to the testimony of Marlena Belnap,
the City Council met with individuals and held public meetings. None of the
property owners were required to connect to city services, but they were
given significantly discounted connection fees and an 18-month window of
opportunity. His testimony is attached to these minutes as Attachment “B”.

Robert Kunesh, SW Ada Neighborhood Association, is in favor of this
legislation. He feels there is a need to be given the right to vote. This is
likened to taxation without representation. If other states have a voting
process, why not Idaho. This process violates the one man, one vote right
of all citizens.

Ray Stark, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, is opposed to this
legislation. Under the opportunity for economic development, annexation is
a good tool. They want to know why the Senate bill passed two years ago
is not working. He is not aware of too many examples.

Joe Tawney, spoke in favor of this legislation. He feels it is best for the
citizens, even though cities do not think the citizens know what is best for
themselves. He sees developers as being part of the problem.

Cindy Ries, spoke in favor of this legislation. She listed several locations
where annexation were put in place since 2000, all forced annexations. On
March 22, there will be hearing on the lawsuit that has been filed against the
State of Idaho Annexation law. She states it is the job of the legislature to
pass laws, not the courts. She stated voluntary annexation happens about
90% of the time and this legislation only affects the other 10%.

Vern Alleman, spoke in favor of this legislation. He wanted to thank Rep
Sali and Rep Bayer for sponsoring it. He feels ordinary citizens are no
match for those paid to represent large groups. H 685 addresses the
problem of no vote for annexation.

Bill Nichols, Attorney for City of Meridian, spoke against this legislation.
He stated his comments were prepared before he heard the proposed
amendments. He further stated Idaho is not the only state that implements
annexation without a vote. His testimony is attached to these minutes at
Attachment “C”.

Wendell Bartlow, spoke in favor of this legislation. He feels it is
reprehensible we are fighting a war in Iraq to give them the vote and withhold
it here in America. His testimony is attached to these minutes as Attachment
“D”.

Mark Butler, Planner, spoke against this legislation. He thinks the key for
annexation is concentration. If this bill passes it makes it difficult to annex
and there would be a need accompanying legislation. Cities need to be able
to plan and comprehensive plans are essential in that process.

Alex LaBeau, Idaho Association of Realtors, spoke against this
legislation. Every community may not have an open, willing-to-listen Mayor
such as Mayor Nancolas in Caldwell, but ultimately these public servants are
accountable for their actions. He feels the law in place should be allowed an
opportunity to work.

Nancy Merrill, Mayor of Eagle and Legislative Chair of the AIC, spoke
against this legislation. She feels they worked hard on S1391aa and
listened to the people. Feels there are many other things that can be done
in lieu of voting on everything. Her testimony is attached to these minutes
as Attachment “E”.

Tom Dale, Mayor of Nampa, spoke against this legislation. He stated there
is great ability in Idaho to plan and prevent unplanned development. He
sees enclaves as the problem. He believes the effects of growth is what
drives annexation of enclave subdivisions. One of the questions he is having
a hard time trying to answer is what are these enclaves gaining from
annexation.

Rep Collins questioned Mayor Dale about the arrogant attitude and
rudeness the Council had in regards to the residents of a subdivision to be
annexed. The Mayor responded he was unaware of this, however, Rep
Collins pointed out a newspaper article he had in his possession that
supported his comments.

Rep Clark stated Rep Collins might have a conflict of interest in this issue.

Rep Collins asked that he be recused from the committee because he has
a personal interest in this legislation which provides a conflict of interest.

Mitch Whited, spoke for this legislation. He does not feel the city has a right
to enforce annexation without any right to vote. He does not like the way the
city and developers work together.

Stan Davis, Mayor of Salmon, asked the committee to hold H 685 in
committee and allow the existing annexation process time to see how it
works. Cities work very well with counties on many issues but there are
times tools are needed. Comprehensive planning is required of cities as it
is a state mandate.

Steve Ahrens, IACI, spoke against this legislation. He states the law on the
books now made several improvements on notification and input. Economic
development is necessary in his business and orderly planning is required
for orderly development.

John Eaton, Building Contractors Association, spoke against this
legislation. He stated they worked hard on the legislation that is now on the
books. His organization supports the Land Use Planning Act.

Ron Bean, spoke in favor of this legislation. He does not see H 685 being
any kind of impediment to cities.

Rep Sali, winding up debate on the bill stated forced annexation is painful.
Most states allow a vote, not all. Forced annexations happen rarely so this
bill would not effect too many people. He thinks the fiscal statement is
correct. Advertising and elections are expensive, but would happen rarely.
The lawsuit that has been filed is dealing with several constitutional issues.
If the lawsuit is successful, there will be no annexation law on the books. He
feels passing this legislation, allowing citizens to vote on annexation,
provides the ability to eliminate arrogance in government.

Rep Bayer, feels that the incivility that occurs during the process may still
occur, but it would be less. He states there is not a direct correlation
between the services and utilities cities and counties provide. He would like
to see this legislation pass.

Rep Clark questioned Rep Sali as to what would constitute an oral protest.
The response would be voicing a protest at the public hearing.

Rep Collins pointed out that under Rule 38 he could possibly have a
financial interest in this issue that might provide a conflict of interest. He is
involved in the enclave area in Nampa that is going through a forced
annexation, however, he feels he can vote objectively on this issue.

Rep Pasley-Stuart supports the motion to hold H 685. She agrees that we
need time to see how the current law works.

MOTION

4 AYE – Representatives Barrett, Collins, Smylie, and Bradford
4 NAY – Representatives Clark, Miller, Ringo, and Pasley-Stuart

Representatives Barrett, Collins, Bradford and Smylie are recorded as voting
no.

EXCUSED:

Rep Smylie questioned where one man, one vote was covered in the
legislation. Rep Eberle felt this question would be answered after listening
to the testimony of Mr Denman and Mr Rasor.

Bill Denman stated this legislation is trying to promote property rights
overall. He quoted from the constitution as well as a quote from former
English Jurist William Blackstone in regards to property rights. People who
ultimately pay for this are the consumers.

Pro active government makes laws to protect rights of property owners.
Reactive government waits until something happens and then writes laws to
correct.

Mr Denman’s comments in regards to this legislation are attached to these
minutes as Attachment “A”.

Rep Clark questioned how Mr Denman had become involved in this
legislation. He responded it was because of a problem that had arisen in
Sandpoint, even though he was not personally involved in that problem.

Rep Smylie wanted to know how widespread this problem was, or was it
only in one locality.

Ken Harward, Executive Director, Association of Idaho Cities, stated
that the way the legislation is written, it deals with two different sections of
the law. It covers Local Improvement Districts and Business Improvement
Districts, but they are two different things, even though a BID works like an
LID. He does not know the number of BID’s in the State of Idaho, but he
does know that in Nampa alone, there could be 20 to 25 operating at one
time.

BID’s are formed, for the most part, for promoting businesses in a specific
geographic location in a city. The ones he is familiar with, Twin Falls, Coeur
d’Alene, Nampa, the city contracts back with the BID to manage.

Rep Eskridge does not think we should be treating an LID and a BID the
same.

Cornel Rasor business owner in Sandpoint, desires to make the BID
process less subject to abuse. BIDs are divisive in nature. Mr Rasor’s
testimony is attached to these minutes at Attachment “B”. He feels the
treatment he received was rude and abusive and no one was willing to listen
to his concerns or to help him. His business is not adjacent to the BID he is
talking about, but is on the edge. However, he is included in the
assessments. He feels he should be capable of making his own business
decisions and not subject to the decisions of a group of business owners.

He does not see a BID creating any long lasting economic effect. In the
cities he has looked at, after an initial burst of activity things returned to the
status they were before. He feels any lasting business increase is due to
hard work, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of the property and business
owner.

Rep Clark questioned whether this legislation should be considered, in that
it appeared to cover two different subjects. The rule is that legislation cannot
cover two subjects.

Rep Barrett asked Rep Eberle if there was any dialogue about this when he
took it to Legislative Services. Rep Eberle said Legislative Services made
the appropriate changes in the legislation.

Mr Rasor feels LIDs and BIDs are so closely related, the issues are often
the same. He stated this issue has become very frustrating and abusive to
him. He has discovered that even though there are procedures in the law for
BIDs, they are basically ignored.

Rep Collins asked Mr Harward to tell the committee how a BID is formed
and dissolved. He replied that business owners, representing a majority of
the assessments, bring forth a petition to form a BID in the proposed
geographic area. A majority of those who formed the BID can dissolve the
BID.

Rep Eberle said assessment is based on the assessed value of the
property, not one person, one vote.

Mr Denman said Section 17 of this legislation does cover a Business
Improvement District, it is just called Local Improvement District.

Rep Eskridge supports the motion. He states there is a problem in
Sandpoint, but he does not feel this legislation will solve the problem.

Rep Collins asked that Rep Eskridge and Rep Eberle work with these
people and put together two different pieces of legislation to deal with these
issues. Rep Ringo agreed with Rep Collins and Rep Eskridge. Rep Smylie
also agreed and did not feel this legislation addresses the issue.

Rep Clark asked how the costs for enforcement were arrived at.

Bruce Alcott, Fire Chief, stated that the purpose of the penalty is to
encourage compliance. Since every situation is different, there is no way to
determine a specific flat rate for a violation. He stated Fire Chiefs do not
want to heavy hand this, so they felt a staggered schedule and including
court costs, if it should go to court, would be an additional incentive for
complying with the violation order.

Rep Eskridge asked what types of things were being talked about. The
response was it could be a damaged mobile home, tall weeds located next
to a building, or other kinds of safety hazards.

Mr Alcott stated that if an individual was making an honest effort to correct
the problem, proceeding to court action would be very unlikely.

Rep Clark did not like the wording on line 33, where it states costs “shall” be
awarded. He felt it should read “may” be awarded.

Mr Alcott stated this legislation was merely to determine where monies were
to go if court action was promulgated. Rep Barrett wanted to know when
attorneys would come into the picture. Mr Alcott responded it would be
difficult for him to pin that down, since he was not an attorney. He did say
that proceeding to court was not the driver if this legislation, but increasing
the penalty to encourage compliance was.

Rep Clark voiced his opposition to the motion. He thinks the additional
amount of the penalty is pretty pricey.

Rep Ringo supports the original motion.

Rep Clark still thinks the legislation should read “may” rather than “shall”.

It was pointed out this merely designated who would receive the money.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 pm.

EXCUSED:

about.