(see attached)

Discussion of State Employee Benefits, presented by Pam Ahrens

(see attached)

Discussion of the role/goals of the Idaho Public Employees Association

Presented by Vicki Patterson

(see attached)

Chairman Andreason introduced Jody Olson, President, PERSI, as
Gubernatorial Appointee. Mr. Olson provided the committee with
information regarding his role in PERSI and his interest in being re-appointed . The committee will take action at our next meeting.

Vice Chairman Goedde assigned docket numbers of the Administrative
Rules Review to committee members

(see attached)

Idaho Endowment Fund Investment Board. Mr. Kealey reviewed his work
history and investment experience. The committee will take action at our
next meeting.

EXCUSED:

Department of Commerce (Karl Tueller and Renea Nelson)

Industrial Commission (Tom Lindbaugh)

Idaho Board of Accountancy (Barbara Porter)

Department of Insurance (Chad Priest)

EXCUSED:

If you look to page 2 lines 14, 20-22 we again clarify the responsibility of
the brokers that more accurately the state of the industry. It removes
some troubled language regarding adverse material facts. Please note
that we are not removing the requirement that agents disclose adverse
material facts that they actually know about. Also on the page, remove
the requirement for an agent to conduct a reasonable investigation of the
property. We are not removing the requirement that they advise the client
to obtain professional services.

Senator Stegner refers back to lines 20-22 and asked if we strike that are
we basically saying that it is no longer a condition that a broker even visit
the property? Alex Labeau states that other places in the code do
require what is called for a seller property condition disclosure report.
That report is required to be given to a buyer. What we want is for the
agent to be able to rely on the representation, unless they know for a fact
otherwise.

Senator Malapai asked if it is a standard practice that when an agent is
going to list a house to consult with the owners if there are any items in
the home as far as defects. Alex Labeau replied that there is a Sellers
Property Condition Disclosure Report that is required on all transactions.
There are minimum standards that are set-up within the law. Our forms
that we provide to our membership are a little more detailed, in fact it is
about three pages. It does contain the states minimum requirements, but
we go over and above that and ask a variety of questions about the
condition of that property that been transmitted to any potential buyer.
Alex Labeau offers to provide the committee a copy of the minimum
requirements that are in the state law with Sellers Property Disclosure
Report as well as a copy of the form that we provide to our membership.

Senator Compton made a motion to send the RS to print. Senator
Goedde seconded the motion.

Senator Stegner refers to page 3 lines 16 and 17 and is wondering if by
enacting this exact language we are allowing a defense by saying that I
didn’t know and therefore I’ve no culpability. For instance, if you had a
client that was making a false representation and the broker suspected
that, but didn’t know it for sure; the former language would have made
that broker somewhat liable. This language removes any liability for him
at all. Alex Labeau states that you can take entire section code vicarious
liability abolished I think that you are somewhat accurate in your
representation about the former language. It was difficult for somebody to
bring a suit as a result of an agent. The problem within in the industry is
that we can’t define what we “reasonably should have known”.

Senator Stegner states that he agrees with the analysis on pages 1 and
2, but I am wondering why it is necessary in this particular case, or why
some other language might not be inserted if your organization is very
unhappy with “reasonably should have known”. Whenever the legislature
starts looking at law that says “shall not be liable for wrongful acts, errors,
admissions and misrepresentations, and then we add to that that the
general reason they wouldn’t be liable is if they didn’t have any knowledge
of it. I still wonder if you are making too tight a standard in this section.
Alex Labeau I suppose that could be the case, maybe we are creating
the standard that some people may view as too tight. But what we are
looking at from our perspective is that “what reasonably should have been
known” we are relying on the representations of our clients unless we
have knowledge to the contrary.

Senator Davis asked Jeremy Pisca whether or not that as he described
the current standard it creates the impression in my mind that you believe
there is strict liability for realtors that with the language as it current
drafted that no matter what happens they are likely to be liable. Am I
misreading your representation to the committee? Jeremy Pisca states
that he did not mean to give that impression and thinks the language, as it
exists in code, invites more lawsuits.

Senator Stegner states he thinks this statement over reaches by giving a
blanket immunity for liability for just the lack of knowledge is much too
favorable a standard given to any industry. At least I would like to think
about it and discuss it a little further. Also we got an offer from Mr.
Labeau to provide some documentation that might be helpful in this
situation. So I offer a substitute motion that this bill be held to a time
certain, one week from today, February 4^th. Senator Davis seconded the
motion. Senator Davis requested a roll call vote, the vote was six in
favor, three opposed.

EXCUSED:

Senator Cameron states if I understand what the Bill does that it does
give the Board the opportunity to review the situation before a person is
convicted. If they are a sexual offender it gives you the right to deny them
the ability to have a license even after five (5) years. If they are convicted
of a felony, you might overlook that. Donna Jones states “yes” that
would give them some discretion obviously as concern over some crimes
as others.

Senator Werk states that the language you have here provides for a lot of
latitude for the determination of whether or not somebody should or
should not be eligible for a license. Will there be a Board that sets policy?
You could decide one day that this crime of check kiting is equivalent to
this first degree murder charge. Donna Jones states that the real estate
agency is governed four (4) commission members who are practicing
brokers. They do have some degree of experience through the years.
Kim Coster, Counsel for the Real Estate Commission states the
particular language referred to comes from Health and Welfare’s criteria
for determining whether a Social Worker worth giving a license to work
with the public. The way the law is written is that someone who is
convicted of a felony is not entitled to a license; provided that after a
period of five (5) years they can petition and make an affirmative showing
that within the criteria they know where they are going. They are not
trying to prove a negative. Senator Davis motions to sent RS12347 to
print, Senator Cameron seconds. Motion passes with a Voice Vote with
one descending vote from Senator Werk.

Senator Werk asked about section three (3) pertaining to applicants and
licensees notifying the board in writing and regarding charges or
convictions. From what I can see charges isn’t what it use to be because
the charges are much different than conviction. What is the procedure
that I get in touch with tell you that I have been charged with felon X?
Barbara Porter states that there is formal procedure for the filing of
complaints allowing the licensee to respond to a complaint. The Board
would not take action against a licensee if a fraudulent charge was
brought against them and dropped. Senator Cameron asked that if a
person was charged but not yet proven guilty, what circumstances would
you revoke a license on a simple felony charge? Barbara Porter
answered that the reason why it is in the accountancy act is that it is a
requirement of the licensee to provide the Board notification if this charge
has occurred. Senator Davis motions to send HB31 to the floor with a
Do Pass Recommendation, Senator Werk seconded the motion. The
motion passed with a Voice Vote.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Clint Ensign, Lobbyist for Sun Valley, Mike Shirley, Resort Manager at
Bogus Basin, and Phil Britain, manager of the Idaho Coalition For
Motorcycle Safety testified in favor of S1051.

Due to time constraints S1051 is held in committee and will be heard
again during the February 18 committee meeting.

EXCUSED:

Senator Werk stated that the reality is that S1083 would pay off the debt
quicker and result in lower taxes, better services, and more flexibility in
the fire fighting community. To vote against S1083 is very short sighted.

Senator Compton requested a Roll Call Vote for the substitute motion to
send S1083 to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation. Senators
Davis, Werk, and Malepeai voted AYE. Senators Andreason, Goedde,
Cameron, Stegner, Compton, and Noble voted NAY resulting in a vote
of three in favor and six opposed.

Senator Stegner requested a Roll Call Vote for the motion to hold S1083
in Committee. Senators Goedde, Cameron, Stegner, Compton, and
Noble vote AYE. Senators Andreason, Davis, Werk, and Malepeai
vote NAY. S1083 was held in Committee.

Steve Tobiason stated that S1051 has taken two different sections of the
code and merged them together.

The following individuals testified in favor of S1051: Mike Shirly, General
Manager of Bogus Basin Ski Report, Charles Coulter, Idaho Coalition of
Motor Cycle Safety.

Senator Davis moved, seconded by Senator Werk, that S1051 be sent
to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation. Motion was carried by a
Voice Vote. Senator Cameron debated against the Motion stating that
the committee in the past has been strongly opposed to mandates.

Senator Goedde will sponsor S1051.

Senator Goedde will sponsor the bill.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Senator Davis stated he will be voting in favor of S1097 because we are
striking language in lines 32-34. I look at sub part 2 on 22 of the Bill and it
says that they still have the duty to exercise reasonable skill and care,
and I believe that is some pretty broad language. Counsel indicated that
on sub part B that if we use the phrase “a reasonable inspection of the
property” that might be something he would feel more peaceful with. As I
look at certain language on page 2 line 25 it says that “owe no duty to a
client to conduct an independent inspection of the property.” Because
there is the language on reasonable skill and care, and it specifically talks
in sub part 6 as being inserted, that it only applies to the inspection of a
property, not an investigation of the property. I will be supporting S1097.

Senator Noble asked what determines Davis Bacon Wages. Dave
Whaley, stated it is an average of the county wages including benefits.
Senator Werk asked why is S1086 defining an eight hour work day.
Dave Whaley replied that every bit of the language in S1086 is the same
as the existing legislation before 1985 when it was taken out and
repealed. AFL-CIO put back the language that was there prior to 1985.

Brad Cederblom, AFL-CIO in Rathdrum, testifies in favor of S1086.

Steve Ahrens, President, Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry
(IACI), stated that in S1086 there is concern with the removal of the
requirement to hire 95% of Idaho workers. The business community and
public entities do not believe it would be a good idea to reimplement that
piece of legislation that was in effect prior to 1985.

Jerry Peterson, Idaho Building & Construction Trades, testified in favor of
S1086.

Pete Skamser, National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB),
represents 7000 Idaho members. He stated that another problem with
S1086 is the eight hour definition. There is always flexibility where one
can work four 10 hour days, three 12 hour days, etc. Why do we have all
this tremendous definition of an eight hour day? In 1985 when this was
repealed, that language in the legislation was for when you start getting
paid overtime. You worked four 10 hour days, you got paid two hours
overtime each day. Our membership does not like this type of legislation
and many members would not even consider bidding on a Davis Bacon
project because they can’t pay those types of wages.

Bob Corbell, represents HVAC and several general contractors, stated
that they do oppose the Bill.

Senator Marley stated we will have 32 states in the union that have
prevailing wage. It is worth while to stop and take a look at this, and not
just go back and revisit arguments that are 15 or 20 years old. There is
enough evidence out there to suggest that what we thought was going to
happen (in 1986) and what we thought world work, has not necessarily
taken place. It would do us well to take a look at this again and debate it
on the floor.

Senator Noble moved, seconded by Senator Davis, to hold S1086 in
Committee.

Senator Malepeai stated that he will vote NO on holding S1086 in
committee, he is not convinced that prevailing wage is going to have a
negative impact on some of the things that were talked about.

Senator Malepeai moved for a substitute motion, seconded by Senator
Werk, that S1086 be sent to the Senate with a Do Pass
Recommendation. Chairman Andreason requested a Roll Call Vote.
Senators Andreason, Goedde, Stegner, Davis, Compton, and Noble
voted NAY. Senators Malepeai and Werk voted AYE resulting in a vote
of two in favor and six opposed. The Motion to send S1086 to the Senate
with a Do Pass Recommendation does not pass.

Senator Andreason requested a Roll Call Vote for the motion to hold
S1086 in committee. Senators Andreason, Goedde, Stegner, Davis,
Compton, Noble, Werk and Malepeai voted AYE resulting in a
unanimous vote. S1086 was held in committee.

Nancy Eschief Murillo, representing the Shoshone Bannock tribes in Ft. Hall,
Idaho spoke in opposition to the bill. She said the airport is located near the
reservation in Fort Hall, Idaho, where they have 544,000 people living. The
tribe is trying to buy back land with taxes, and she felt that the Shoshone
Bannock tribe has the right of first refusal.

Dale Aldridge, President, Port of Lewiston commission, spoke in favor of the
bill saying that the port is very involved in international trade. The cargo is
almost 100% outbound as opposed to inbound. Most importantly, is the
economic development and job creation.

Vicki Meadows, Power County Commissioner spoke in Opposition to the bill.

Paul Lage, prosecuting attorney for Kootenai county spoke in opposition to the
bill saying they are ini favor of economic development, but have some
questions as to what this bill will do. He felt that there is no reason why a port
authority needs to cross county lines, and that this legislation is unclear as to
where you would vote.

Ray Bursted, President, Idaho Economic Development Assn. spoke in favor of
the bill, saying that the Assn. sees that this could be a great economic
development opportunity and passing of this bill would attract more industry to
the state.

Steve Ahrens spoke in opposition to this legislation on behalf of the Idaho
Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI) There are members who are in
support, but as IACI is a broad based association and they make decisions
based on what the members consider to be in the best interest of the state
business community as a whole. He said attempts had been made more than
once to broaden the port authority, and IACI was opposed to those as well.
They appreciate all the efforts put into this, but they have reservations, and no
argument about two areas. The desire of the sponsors to accomplish economic
development, and the eagerness to do it, is appropriate, Also, the success of
the Lewiston Port has been a star in Idaho’s economy for a number of years.
Whichever way the debate of this goes, it is not reflective of the Lewiston Port.

The Association feels they don’t have answers to the following issues.

1. There is concern about creation of addition taxing districts in the State of
Idaho, as 60 new ones have been created in the last year. There are now 1066
in Idaho, all with the ability to levy taxes.

2. The members have said they are not convinced that it is necessary to make
this change in order to carry on economic development activities.

3. The tax that would be levied, which would be 1/10th of 1%, as Senator
Compton said, but ten years ago, the tax proposal was a small thing as well,
and with the addition of tax districts, and we are all paying more taxes. It does
add up as you multiply it by the number of taxing districts. The big things can
get out of hand when you don’t pay attention to the small things.

4. The existing port authority statues are designed for a specific purpose, that
of a seaport and there is no question about the existing port’s authority. The
question is if the statutes are applicable to a totally different thing, which is a
land-locked facility. There are questions to be answered before deciding
whether to take a seaport statute and magically transform it by adding an “or”
and make it into a land-locked statute. In Section 70-15-05, the language is
very broad in authority, yet powerful.

IACI members want to be sure that when the purpose of this statute is
transformed, that it is still okay in its new application where you are going to
contemplate a new port district in Blaine or Elmore County. He asked that the
bill be held in committee.

Senator Goedde asked if the port districts have ever been challenged
according to constitutionality, and was told by Mr. Ahrens that as a
Statesman/Reporter he covered the story when the port was established at
Lewiston and to his knowledge it hadn’t ever been challenged.

Senator Werk asked if he had the picture correct, as he felt he had heard two
different things from Mr. Ahrens. One being an aversion to a proliferation of
taxing districts, no matter what they are for. The other is that there is a level of
discomfort with some of the language in the bill which was written for something
else, and with some changes could work for this issue. Could the language be
altered so that IACI would be comfortable with it, even though it would create
taxing districts? Mr. Ahrens responded that members of IACI are interesting in
economic development and making Idaho a better place to do business, but
they are concerned about more taxing districts. Whether that means that the
proposal, after being weighed, and with all the elements might lead them to
support it, he wouldn’t say. He did say they are very concerned about the
proliferation of taxing districts in the last 10 years and would like to hold them
as low as possible.

Senator Compton commented that IACI is viewed as an organization that
promotes programs that would enhance the economic conditions and the
atmosphere by where Idaho could do business, and he can see this legislation
as something that can move us in that direction. Sometimes there aren’t laws
that enable us to do these things, and the local communities have to find ways
to rebuild their communities, given the atmosphere as with Astaris and Micron
and those kinds of business. Little communities are desperate for these kinds
of things and if we can come up with things where they have local input
whether they are taxing themselves for something of benefit of the community,
would Mr. Ahrens still be opposed. Mr. Ahrens responded that he wanted to
make sure that the statutory language that is written specifically to apply to one
narrow project will apply equally to all 43 other counties under different kinds of
operations, and concerns. The members are not comfortable right now as to
how that relates.

Charles Clark, representing Union Pacific Railroad spoke in support of S1090.
He felt uncomfortable following the Pres. Of IACI, as he has been a member of
that organization for 26 years.

He feels he understands transportation in our state quite well, and he is
learning more about economic development. He also was asked by Governor
Kempthorne to look at the situation in Bannock County. From a transportation
angle, Pocatello ought to be a transportation hub, maybe not a major one like
Portland or Seattle, but there are things that can be done in Southeastern Idaho
to make this a hub. There are major Interstate highways, 84 and I-15 and the
railroad rolling through there, and, the airport and the infrastr5ucture lends
itself to this type of transportation hub. My company would prefer to do this, but
even then they don’t have enough spaces to fill the needs of the hub that is
being looked at. Looking at the members of the committee, he could make a
case for a port district for transportation needs in each of their areas. There
are two possibilities in Treasure Valley, one at Orchard, and one at Nampa.
Going farther north, from a railroad point of view they are two class one
railroads, UPRR and Burlington Northern that run through Kootenai county.
This could capture some of the NAPA business that is running through Canada
and moving across. UPRR is not a great fan of paying additional taxes and
there would be more taxes if this port district were put in place, but the
conclusion the company’s tax department has come to is that the benefits
would probably outweigh the tax. UPRR serves the port of Montana out of
Butte, and Montana’s economy is similar to Pocatello, which has survived some
tough economic times. The credit for the success of that port is the excellent
manager there. That port has provided jobs and alternative transportation
modes dealing with grain, fertilizer, aggregates, and if it weren’t for the port of
Montana, he questions whether the UPRR line would survive from Pocatello to
Butte.

General Motors approached UPRR and asked for a distribution carrier for their
products to serve the Dakotas, part of Minnesota, Wyoming and Montana, and
a need a place to bring the automobiles. One phone call was made to the port
of Montana, and they built a fence, asphalted some ground, had the personnel
and now all the vehicles from General Motors are distributed out of Montana.

Ken Estep, Power County Commissioner spoke in opposition of the bill, as
they feel it is unclear as far as economic development. FMC (Food Machinery
and Chemical Corporation) in Pocatello is 11% of their tax base and they are not
opposed to the economic development in anyway. He said the Commissioners felt that
if it is going to be voted in by the county, it should be a super majority or at least 60%,
and not a simple majority and if it involves two counties, this should pass both counties
by this percent.

Neil Coldwell representing Avista Corporation, a gas and electric utility that
operates in northern Idaho, previously known as Washington Water Power.
They are headquartered in Spokane, but do have about 30,000 customers in
Idaho. One of those customers is the Port of Lewiston, and they are in favor of
the economic aspects of this proposal. Avista is a member of IACI, and some
friends are in favor and some are opposed. Whenever the Legislature grants
authority to an area to create taxing districts it is always a tough decision as to
whether the benefits are going to outweigh the costs and risks associated.
With the caps on property tax that goes with this, is felt to be a fairly reasonable
restriction. A lot of the discussion seems to apply around the Pocatello area,
but it can apply to other areas of the state. With the situation that the state
finds itself in, it may be time to go ahead and expand these districts, and let
those locals decide to take that risk. He encouraged the committee if they
weren’t going to pass the legislation in its current form, to not let the issue die,
but address the specifics to solve the concerns.

Senator Marley told the committee that this was the first baby step, and if this
legislation passed, nothing would happen until it goes to the local level and
starts working. They tried to find a simple solution and put in and “and’s” and
“or’s” to make it both river and land based, but it got the legislation headed in
the area it needs to go. A trailer bill can come back with the election issues, if
that is a concern, because nothing is going to happen in the communities until
they have the idea of the concept of a port authority . There is a lot of interest
in port authority in Southeastern Idaho, and he felt that one in Bannock County
should be considered in McCammon, where there are two railroads coming
from Wyoming and Utah, and !-15 joins Highway 30, which would be a perfect
place for economic development and a port authority. There are those who
would like to look in the direction of the airport. It will create some much
needed infrastructure to attract businesses to this area. He admitted that this
isn’t a perfect bill but hopes it will be sent to the floor for debate.

Senator Compton responded to the issues raised in discussion. Before
anyone can be annexed in a voting district, the voters have to give approval.
Establishing a free trade zone, has nothing to do with port authority. In lieu of
taxes, if the port authority owns the building and they have a tenant who is
normally a tax paying entity, they pay the rent and the taxes on top of that.
That goes to the treasurer and is distributed to the taxing districts. The port
authority has the qualification that they can get snow plows or other materials
through the federal government, and have that ability. The people that drafted
this have worked very well with the Lewiston port authority and feel that it will
operate well off the Navajo river. Looking at what other states have done, it will
work in Idaho and is a great tool for economic development. Nothing is easy,
our forefathers would not have come here and built schools, etc. if it they took
the easy road. This will help the schools and he feels it should go forward.

There is a proliferation of “political cybersquatting” which is the practice of co-opting the website domain name or address of a competitor for political office in
order to keep the public away from the competitor s website. This violates the
basic principles of free speech and denies the voter s access to information
necessary to making informed decisions in the election process. This bill makes
it illegal to engage in such practice and provides penalties.

The current low interest rate environment, combined with a minimum annuity
nonforfeiture rate of three percent that was set nearly thirty years ago, has
contributed to a lack of availability of short-term fixed annuities for consumers.
This legislation would reduce the minimum nonforfeiture interest rate for
individual deferred annuities to one and one half percent until July of 2005.
Such a change is beneficial to Idaho’s consumers as well as domestic life
insurers. There has been no opposition to the bill, and the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners voted in support of this change in 2002.

EXCUSED:

Senator Goedde moved, seconded by Senator Compton, that H179 be
held in committee.

Chairman Andreason requested a Roll Call Vote. Senators Goedde
and Compton voted AYE, and Senators Andreason, Stegner, Davis,
Cameron, Werk and Malepeai voted NAY resulting in a vote of two in
favor and six opposed. H179 will not be held in committee.

Chairman Andreason requested a Roll Call Vote to send H179 to the
Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation. Senators Goedde, Cameron,
Stegner, Davis, Compton, Werk, Malepeai and Andreason vote AYE
resulting in a unanimous vote in favor of sending H179 to the Senate with
a Do Pass Recommendation. Senator Malepeai will sponsor the Bill.

Woody Richards, Old Standard Life Insurance Company, testified in
favor of H62a. Senator Goedde moved, seconded by Senator Noble
that H62a be sent to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation.
Motion carried by a Voice Vote. Senator Goedde will sponsor the Bill.

EXCUSED:

Paul Aston, Idaho Association of Building Officials, Jennifer Gilliland,
Building Division Manager, City of Boise, Darrell Mayes, representing the
City of Caldwell testified in opposition of S1133. Ben Kohler, Idaho
Mechanical Contractors, Pat Minegar, HVAC Association, Jim Bledsoe,
HVAC Association, Jerry Peterson, Idaho Building Trades Council, John
Eaton, Building Contractors Association, and Neal Colwell, VISTA
CORP. that serves about 100,000 customers in central and northern
Idaho, testified in favor of S1133.

Bob Corbell stated that they tried to address the code. We have cities
and counties using the International Building code. We also have people
using the Uniform Mechanical Code. I don’t think it is up to us with this
Legislation to tell everybody they are going to use a specific type of code
when Ada County is using Uniform Mechanical Code and the City of
Boise is using the International Code.

Senator Cameron stated that he is having trouble with the fiscal note on
the Bill. Under Joint Rule 18, the fiscal note doesn’t properly address the
fiscal impact, I would like to know what the impact would be to the
plumbing board. Bob Corbell replied that the fiscal impact has no impact
on the General Fund. Senator Davis stated that he agrees with Senator
Cameron in challenging Joint Rule 18, and recommends holding the Bill
in committee to a time certain so that an amended Statement of Purpose
can be prepared. Chairman Andreason decided to hold the Bill in
committee for one week.

Most construction defects are settled without having to go through
litigation. We believe that this legislation applies to someone who is
ready to go to court.

Alex Labeau, Idaho Association of Realtors, testified in favor of H133.

Lynn Luker, Idaho Trial Lawyers Association testified in opposition of
H133. Most homeowners wouldn’t know that this procedure is out there.

Representative Gagner stated that he is in the contracting business and
testified in opposition of H133 and has just finished his 700^th home in an
18 year period. The language that takes place under “right to cure” is
taken from a 210 warranty program that has been available on the market
for about 15 years. I have used it on all the homes I have built and have
yet to go to court.

David Kerrick, Idaho Trial Lawyers Association, testified in opposition of
H133. This piece of Legislation is very confusing and there is already
procedure in place for dispute resolution and this adds a superstructure of
more complexity.

Jeremy Pisca, Idaho Homebuilders Association, stated that this
Legislation is not a notice period that you have to give your contractor
before he comes out to fix something. It is a notice provision before you
sue. Brad Dixon, BMC West testified in favor of H133. Senator Goedde
moved, seconded by Senator Compton, that H133 be sent to the Senate
with a Do Pass Recommendation. Motion carried by a Roll Call Vote,
eight AYE’S and one NAY by Senator Stegner.

EXCUSED:

Senator Cameron moved, seconded by Senator Noble, that H177 be
sent to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation. Senator Compton
moved for a substitute motion, seconded by Senator Goedde, to amend
H177 and send to the 14^th order changing the word in line 12 from “shall” to
“may approve”, and delete “mobile home park” and change to
“manufactured home park”. The Substitute Motion does not pass with a
Roll Call Vote. Six NAY’s and three AYE’s.

Motion to send H177 to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation
passes with a Voice Vote. Senator Goedde will sponsor the Bill.

Lt. Governor Risch stated that this Bill talks about attorneys fees, it has
very little to do with attorneys fees. The attorney is always going to get
paid. What this Bill does do is make a very basic change in relationship
between the first party insured and the insurance company. If a guys place
burned down and he had business interruption insurance, he was in
financial trouble. The company has to investigate, evaluate and at the first
part of the case they have to pay. That is exactly what the law says today.
H180’s SOP says that “this Bill provides an orderly process for the
resolution process.” We already have that in IC 41-1839.

Rod Seatrum, Lawyer, Farm Bureau, testified in favor of H180.

Senator Cameron motioned, seconded by Senator Stegner that we
adjourn and continue hearing H180 3/13/03.

EXCUSED:

Jerry Peterson, Building Trades Council, testified in favor of S1133.

Derrell Mayes, Idaho Association of Building Officials in the City of
Caldwell stated his concern of S1133 is its impact on cities and counties
that are currently employing building and mechanical inspectors. If the
Bill is passed, these people could loose their jobs.

Senator Stegner moved, seconded by Senator Compton that S1133 be
sent to the 14^th Order. Senator Cameron moved that S1133 be held in
committee, there is no second. Motion to send S1133 to the 14^th Order is
carried by Voice Vote.

John Bush, Idaho Trial Lawyers Association testified in opposition of
H180.

Ron Tucker, Claim Fee Manager, State Farm Insurance testified in
opposition of H180. Senator Cameron moved, seconded by Senator
Stegner, that H180 be held in committee. Senator Noble moved to send
H180 to the 14^th order, there is no second. Motion to held H180 in
committee was carried by a Voice Vote.

EXCUSED:

Senator Noble made a substitute motion, seconded by Senator
Cameron to hold H133 in committee.

Senator’s Stegner and Goedde spoke in opposition of the substitute
motion. Senator Noble spoke in opposition of sending H133 to the
Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation.

The substitute motion to hold H133 in committee failed by a Roll Call
Vote; six NAY’S and two AYE’S.

The motion to send H133 to the Senate was carried by a Roll Call Vote;
two NAY’S and six AYE’S.

EXCUSED:

Senator Goedde asked Mr. Smith if he is familiar with a letter dated
March 4, 2003 to our Governor from the Governor of Utah. Mr. Smith
replied that he is not. Senator Goedde pointed out that in the letter,
second paragraph, he asks for a 100 days to complete their process in
privatizing the Utah Workers Compensation Fund. To me this is a real
free admission of what we are with is a part of the Utah State
Government.

Ryan Moose, WorkCare, Dan Stephens, Claims Manager, Pinnacle Risk
Management, Rick Roberson, WorkCare, Mike Shirley General
Manager, Bogus Basin, Torey McAlvain, President, McAlvain
Construction, Dean Summers, and Pete McDonald, Owner, McDonald
Insurance testified in favor of S1148.

Phil Barber, American Insurance Association, George Tway, Freemont
Employers and Mike Brassey testified against S1148.

Senator Stegner moved, seconded by Senator Goedde, that S1148 be
held in committee.

Senator Davis made a substitute motion, seconded by Senator Noble to
move S1148 to the 14^th order to attach a one year sunset clause.

Senator’s Cameron, Stegner, and Goedde debate against the
substitute motion.

Senator’s Davis and Werk debate in favor of substitution.

The substitute motion to send S1148 to the 14^th order passed by Roll Call
Vote. Five AYE’S and four NAY’S.

EXCUSED:

Senator Goedde moved, seconded by Senator Davis that H144 be sent
to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation. Motion carried by a
Voice Vote.

EXCUSED:

The Access Card is a prepaid credit card where a qualified individual can
purchase health insurance or use it to participate in their employers group
plan. Each year the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) would
evaluate the need and recharge the card for a 12-month period.

The children’s program will provide up to $100 per month per child in the
185% poverty level down to where a child would qualify for Medicaid.

The adult program would provide $100 per month for an individual adult.
The $100 amount would be shared between two qualifying adults in the
same family. There is a cap of one thousand (1000) adults for the
program.

Small businesses that have 2-50 employees can participate in this
program to help cover workers who qualify. If a small business offers a
health plan to their employees, they may have an employee who qualifies
for the Access Card. The business would have to pay at least 50% of the
costs for that employee. The Access Card is tied to the individual and not
the business.

The Health Insurance Access Card Program would be funded with money
from the insurance premium tax. Twenty five percent of the money from
this tax over $55 million would go to the children’s program. Twenty
percent over $55 million would go to the adult program. The Access Card
program and CHIP plan B would begin July 1, 2004. The adult plan would
begin in 2005.

Senator Cameron reported that medicaid Health Insurance and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) waivers fit right into this plan. Medicaid is
open and flexible in allowing choice.

The Health Insurance Access Card children and adult programs, have no
sunset clauses because they both have caps. The adult program is
capped at 1000 adults that are screened and qualified by DHW. It is first
come first served. The children’s program has a dollar cap. If the
program is as successful as anticipated, future legislatures would decide
if it should be expanded.

Senator Cameron reported that Idaho has 220,000 uninsured citizens.
He also reported to the committee what income would qualify a person at
the 185% of poverty level. It is based on the number in a family. One
person=$16,600 income, two people= $22,000 income, three people=
$28,000 income, four people= $34,000 income.

The Department of Health and Welfare will administer the program with
the help of the Department of Insurance. Costs would be covered by the
percentage of money over $55 million from the premium tax. The state
would pay the insurance company for the qualified individual

EXCUSED:

Coeur d’Alene North Idaho College – Allied Health, Nursing & Life
Sciences Building ($10,994,000 state bond funds)

Moscow University of Idaho – Teaching and Learning Center
($11,729,000 state bond funds)

Lewiston Lewis Clark State College – Campus Classroom and Activity
Center ($10,868,000 state bond funds & $3,500,000 student & local
funds)

Nampa Boise State University – West Campus Academic Building
($8,655,000 state bond funds)

Meridian Idaho State Police – Training Facility ($2,286,000 state bond
funds)

Twin Falls College of Southern Idaho – Fine Arts Addition ($5,402,000
state bond funds & $1,857,000 in other funds)

Pocatello Idaho State University – Classroom Building and Multi-Use
Facility ($12,177,000 state bond funds & $22,250,000 in student fees)

Idaho Falls Eastern Idaho Technical College ($6,360,000 state bond
funds & $3,500,000 in federal funds)

No general fund dollars will be used for bond payments. HCR30 provides
the following:

• Legislative approval to enter into agreements with State Building
  Authority to bond for 8 projects.
• Lists each individual project.
• Provides assurance that agreements will comply with state laws.
• Fiscal note provides list of bonding amounts for each individual
  project
• Fiscal note provides range of annual debt service of $5.25 – $5.75
  million for 20 years.

Two trailer Bills will accompany HCR30: H396 will authorize State Building
Authority to bond for Community College projects, and H397 will prohibit
future use of Permanent Building Fund Revenues to pay debt services on
new bond issues.

The immediate economic impact is expected to be $188,219,279
statewide and create 2,468 jobs statewide, including 1,233 construction
jobs.

EXCUSED:

Pam Eaton, Idaho Retailers Association testified in opposition of H383.
There are two primary reasons: 1) The Bill is confusing and can’t
understand the language in the Bill. They sent it to a couple of attorneys
and they even didn’t understand the language in the legislation. 2) This
piece of legislation is government inserting itself in independent decision.
The franchise law is very heavily regulated by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and part of those regulations is that it spells out choice
of law, venue of law, etc. in those contracts. Senator Compton stated
that he cannot understand why the small businessmen or the franchisees
in the state of Idaho would not want protection from gigantic corporations
just because it is a government law. Pam Eaton replied that they are
afraid that franchiser will not want to come to our state. Iowa had a
similar law passed and it has hurt their franchise business. Franchisers
refused to do business in Iowa after that Law was passed. Robert
Rodriguez, Executive, Mrs. Fields Cookies, Matt Lathrop, Government
Affairs, International Franchise Association testified against H383. Con
Paulos, Franchisee, Dick Hand, Idaho Lodging Association, Chuck
Everett, Hotelier, Association of Inn Keepers, Alex Labeau, Idaho
Association of Realtors, Dennis Brennen, Auto Dealers Association, Jim
Mowbry, President, TCBY, Representative Lee Gayner, Remax Realty,
testified in favor of H383.

Senator Cameron moved, seconded by Senator Compton that H383 be
sent to the Senate with a Do Pass Recommendation.

Senator Davis made a substitute motion, seconded by Senator Stegner
that H383 be sent to the 14^th Order for amendment. The substitute motion
to send H383 to the 14^th Order passed by Roll Call Vote. Senators
Davis, Stegner, Goedde, Cameron, Compton, Werk and Malepeai
voted AYE. Chairman Andreason voted NAY.

EXCUSED:

LaMoyne Hyde was appointed as Director of the Department of
Commerce on April 24, 2003, by Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorn.

Mr. Hyde is a self-employed businessman from Idaho Falls, owning and
operating businesses dealing with water conditioning, sportsmen
outfitting, sales, marketing, and farming. He has been involved in all
aspects of the outdoor sportsmen and farming industries. He is well
experienced working with businessmen, sportsman, lodge owners, and
the farming industry. He has traveled extensively throughout Alaska to
South America and the United States.

He has changed the structure of his businesses; therefore, he does not
expect any business conflict while serving as director of the Department
of Commerce.

Mr. Hyde explained his many years dealing with farming and other
business interests have given him the opportunity to become very familiar
with problems relating to farming and the business industry. He has a
broad understanding of Idaho’s fish and game, farming, outfitting, waters,
and other business entities. He is aware of the challenges and the
economic needs for developing business opportunities as well as
encouraging and promoting tourism in Idaho. He understands the
industrial and tourism challenges facing Idaho’s small rural communities.
He is confident he has the political knowledge to be the director, and to
promote rural economic development

His business achievements include:

1. Owner, operator, developer, and designer of Hyde Drift Boats
   which does business in Canada, Argentina, Norway, Chile, as well
   as throughout the United States. Hyde Boats has grown into a
   multimillion dollar business, headquartered in Idaho Falls. Hyde
   Boats has worked closely with spin-off companies from the
   INEEL’s downsizing to develop many parts used in the
   manufacture of its drift boat.





2. Owner and operator of Hyde Water Conditioning, designer and
   supplier of water treatment equipment for commercial and
   residential applications throughout Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.





3. Owner and operator of Hyde Outfitters with permits on six major
   rivers and reservoirs in southeastern Idaho.





4. Owner and operator of Last Chance Lodge and Restaurant in
   Island Park, Idaho.





5. Owner and operator of fly fisherman shops in Idaho Falls and
   Island Park.

Mr. Hyde is the first emergency medical technician in Idaho, and served
12 years with the Bonneville County Search and Rescue. He has also
served on the Governor’s Economic Advisory Council, Zions Bank
Advisory Board, Idaho Travel Council, Idaho Falls Chamber of
Commerce, and the Board of the Eastern Idaho Economic Council.

Committee members held a general discussion pertinent to numerous
areas such as:

1. Conflict of interest with other business entities;
2. Recreational water resources;
3. Maintaining Idaho’s lower dams;
4. Economic impacts and fiscal actions;
5. Future direction planned for the Department of Commerce;
6. Fiscal management and budget impacts, and,
7. The importance and value of efficient usage of budget dollars.

MOTION: