Local Government Taxation

MINUTES
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
DATE: Tuesday, February 10, 2026
TIME: 3:00 P.M.
PLACE: Room WW53
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Ricks, Vice Chairman Adams, Senators Grow, Anthon, Bernt, Den
Hartog, Toews, Rabe, and Taylor
ABSENT/
EXCUSED:
None
NOTE: The sign-in sheet, testimonies and other related materials will be retained with
the minutes in the committee's office until the end of the session and will then be
located on file with the minutes in the Legislative Services Library.
CONVENED: Chairman Ricks called the meeting of the Senate Local Government and Taxation
Committee (Committee) to order at 3:00 p.m.
RS 33075C1 Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. Senator Toews stated that RS 33075C1
removed certain regulations preventing the construction of accessory dwelling units.
MOTION: Senator Den Hartog moved to send RS 33075C1 to print. Senator Rabe
seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
RS 33077C1 Relating to Local Land Use Planning. Senator Toews explained that this
legislation was the result of an interim committee on land use and housing. RS
33077C1 allowed religious organizations to develop housing.
MOTION: Senator Den Hartog moved to send RS 33077C1 to print. Senator Taylor
seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
RS 33078C1 Relating to Housing. Senator Toews stated that this legislation removed red tape
for first time home buyers and allowed smaller lots and smaller setbacks.
Senator Taylor moved to send RS 33078C1 to print. Vice Chairman Adams
seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
RS 33083C1 Relating to Housing. Senator Toews explained that this legislation allowed twin
homes or duplexes on residential lots where single family homes were already
permitted.
DISCUSSION: Senator Bernt asked whether the homes would still have to meet Home Owner
Association standards. Senator Toews responded that this legislation did not
address that issue.
MOTION: Senator Den Hartog moved to send RS 33083C1 to print. Senator Taylor
seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
PASSED THE
GAVEL:
Chairman Ricks passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Adams.
DOCKET NO.
35-0106-2501
Hotel/Motel Room and Campground Sales Tax Administrative Rules (ZBR
Chapter Rewrite) - Pending Rule. Philip Johnson, Tax Research Specialist,
Idaho State Tax Commission, presented Docket No. 35-0106-2501. He explained
that this was a Zero-Based Regulation rewrite in compliance with Governor Brad
Little's 2020 Executive Order. Restrictive words were removed. The Idaho Code
provisions that were restated in the Rules were removed.
MOTION: Senator Toews moved to approve Docket No. 35-0106-2501. Senator Taylor
seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.

-- 1 of 2 --

PASSED THE
GAVEL:
Vice Chairman Adams turned the meeting back over to Chairman Ricks.
ADJOURNED: There being no further business at this time, Chairman Ricks adjourned the
meeting at 3:13 p.m.
___________________________ ___________________________
Senator Ricks Meg Lawless
Chair Secretary
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, February 10, 2026—Minutes—Page 2

-- 2 of 2 --

FY 2026 &
FY 2027
Budget Update
Keith Bybee, Budget and Policy
Analysis Division Manager
4 February 2026
Attachment 1
2-4-2026

-- 1 of 15 --

General Fund Structural Balance (in millions)
* EORAC revenue projections and FY 2026 Current budget amount. FY 2027-28 uses average
annual growth rate of 5.7% from 2013 - 2025 2
$3,732 	$3,735
$4,032
$5,009
$6,198
$5,948
$5,711 $5,877 $5,665
$5,817
$6,082
$3,469
$3,689 $3,823 $3,752
$4,336
$4,652
$5,109 $5,284
$5,624
$5,949
$6,292
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
$6,500
2018 	2019 	2020 	2021 	2022 	2023 	2024 	2025 	2026* 	2027* 	2028*
General Fund Revenue & EORAC Projections 	Expenditures & Budgeted Amount

-- 2 of 15 --

10-year General Fund Growth by Category
3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2017	
2018	
2019	
2020	
2021	
2022	
2023	
2024	
2025	
2026
Public Schools 	Higher Education 	Medicaid 	Health & Welfare 	Adult/Juv Correction 	All Other

-- 3 of 15 --

FY 2026 General Fund Budget Update
4
REVENUES 2025 Law 	Gov. Recommend Legislative Scenario
1. 	Estimated Beginning Balance / Unobligated Cash Balance 	419,681,100 	313,670,400 	313,670,400
2. 	Cash Reserved for Reappropriation/Carry forward 	43,567,900 	43,567,900
3. 	After Year-Yed Reversions (DHW, DEQ) 	4,794,100 	4,794,100
4. 	Available Cash Balance 	$ 419,681,100 	$ 362,032,400 	$ 362,032,400
5. 	Projected Revenue / Revised Revenue Jan. Forecast 	5,929,118,200 	5,512,406,100 	5,665,100,000
6. 	Conformity 	(155,000,000)
7. 	TOTAL REVENUES AND ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE 	$ 6,348,799,300 	$ 5,874,438,500 	$ 5,872,132,400
8. 	FY 2026 Transfers in (out) 	(285,000,000) 	(285,000,000) 	(285,000,000)
9. 	Deficiency Warrants (Pests, Hazardous Materials) 	(1,316,400) 	(1,316,400) *
10. 	Cash Transfers In 	106,745,000 	106,745,000 	*
11. 	Total Transfers in (out) 	($ 285,000,000) 	($ 179,571,400) 	($ 179,571,400)
12. 	NET REVENUES (line 6+11) 	$ 6,063,799,300 	$ 5,694,867,100 	$ 5,692,561,000
APPROPRIATIONS
13. 	FY 2026 Program Maintenance 	5,404,879,200 	5,404,879,200 	5,404,879,200
14. 	FY 2026 Enhancements 	219,061,300 	219,061,300 	219,061,300
15. 	FY 2026 Original Appropriations 	$ 5,623,940,500 	$ 5,623,940,500 	$ 5,623,940,500
16. 	Authorized Reappropriation/Carry forward 	43,567,900 	43,567,900 *
17. 	Supplementals 	42,135,100 	42,135,100 *
18. 	Temporary Reduction in Spending - E.O. 2025-02 	(46,951,700) 	(46,951,700) *
19. 	FY 2026 Estimated Expenditures 	$ 5,662,691,800 	$ 5,662,691,800
20. 	FY 2026 ESTIMATED ENDING BALANCE (line 12-19) 	$ 439,858,800 	$ 32,175,300 	$ 29,869,200

-- 4 of 15 --

5
FY 2027 General Fund Summary
*Legislature has not taken action
REVENUES 	Governor's Rec 	Legislative Scenario 	Difference
1. Estimated Beginning Balance 	$ 32,175,300 	$ 29,869,200 	$ (2,306,100) *
2. Gov Adjusted Revenue Projection - 0.8% increase 	5,524,246,700 	5,661,600,000 	$ 137,353,300 *
3. Total Revenues and Estimated Beginning Cash 	5,556,422,000 	5,691,469,200 	$ 135,047,200 *
4. Total Transfers In (Out) 	101,037,600 	101,037,600 	$ 0 *
5. NET REVENUES 	5,657,459,600 	5,792,506,800 	$ 135,047,200 *
6. FY 2027 Program Maintenance 	5,611,203,000 	5,611,203,000 	$ 0 *
7. Total Budget Enhancements 	20,715,100 	20,715,100 	$ 0 *
8. FY 2027 Original Appropriations 	5,631,918,100 	5,631,918,100 	$ 0 *
9. 	FY 2027 ESTIMATED ENDING BALANCE 	$ 25,541,500 	$ 160,588,700 	$ 135,047,200 *

-- 5 of 15 --

Cash Position Then and Now (in millions)
2009 	2026
Beginning Cash 	$248.8 	$357.2
Budget Stabilization Fund / ERRF 	$206.7 	$880.2
Public Education Stabilization Fund 	$112.1 	$256.6
Emergency Funds 	$3.3 	$21.7
Other 	$70.21 	$168.2
Total 	$641.1 	$1,683.9
As Percentage of Original Appropriation 	21.7% 	29.9%
6
*Other includes Medicaid Stabilization Fund ($8.4m); Technology Infrastructure Stabilization Fund ($1.2m); Higher
Education Stabilization Fund ($29.7m); 27 th Payroll Fund ($38.8m); and Millennium Traditional Fund ($70.5m)

-- 6 of 15 --

Sources: Comparative Statement, State Tax Commission; FY 2026 General Fund Revenue Book, Division of Financial Management;
Legislative Fiscal Report; House Bill 521.
85.8% 76.2% 70.1% 64.8% 	64.1%
0.9% 4.8% 5.6% 10.7% 	11.0%
13.3%
12.6% 17.2% 	16.7% 	16.8%
6.4% 	7.2% 	7.9% 	8.1%
FY 08 	FY 22 	FY 24 	FY 25 	FY 26
SALES TAX DISTRIBUTIONS
General Fund 	State Spending 	Local Units of Government 	Tax Relief Fund

-- 7 of 15 --

• 	Tax Conformity
• 	Standard Deduction
• 	Bonus Deduction for Seniors
• 	Tipped Wages
• 	Overtime Pay
• 	Increased Cap for SALT
• 	Auto Loan Deductible Interest
• 	Research & Experimentation
Cost Recovery
• 	Qualified Production Property
• 	Small Business Expensing
One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR1)
8

-- 8 of 15 --

Please feel free to contact me with
any questions at (208)334-4739 or
kbybee@Lso.Idaho.gov
9

-- 9 of 15 --

Per Capita General Fund Appropriations
(Adjusted for Inflation)
$2,509
$2,497
$2,780
$2,893
$2,822
$2,391
$2,226
$2,265
$2,356
$2,350
$2,401
$2,467
$2,551
$2,593
$2,616
$2,678
$2,674
$2,540
$2,562
$2,736
$2,664
$2,725
$-
$1,500
$3,000
$4,500
$6,000
$7,500
Fiscal Year
Real General Fund Appropriations Per Capita | Inflation Adjusted

-- 10 of 15 --

State Fund (Gen/Ded) Appropriations Per Capita
(Inflation Adjusted)
$3,446
$3,465
$3,802
$3,971
$3,811
$3,624
$3,263
$3,343
$3,472
$3,467
$3,507
$3,624
$3,846
$3,889
$3,895
$3,906
$3,933
$3,761
$4,110
$4,369
$4,409
$4,151
$0
$1,500
$3,000
$4,500
$6,000
$7,500
Fiscal Year
State Funds Appropriations | Per Capita | Inflation Adjusted
2005-2026

-- 11 of 15 --

22-Year History ($ in millions)
22
Fiscal 	Public 	College & 	All Other 	Total 	Health & 	Adult & Juv 	All Other 	Total
Year 	Schools 	Universities 	Education 	Education 	Welfare 	Corrections 	Agencies 	Gen Fund
2026 	$2,754.7 	$383.6 	$329.6 	$3,467.8 	$1,229.7 	$404.4 	$522.0 	$5,623.9
2025 	$2,651.9 	$365.1 	$306.1 	$3,323.1 	$1,141.5 	$382.5 	$419.7 	$5,266.9
2024* 	$2,698.8 	$353.9 	$294.6 	$3,347.4 	$1,070.6 	$370.3 	$392.6 	$5,181.0
2023 	$2,318.1 	$338.1 	$249.5 	$2,905.7 	$1,024.5 	$345.4 	$348.8 	$4,624.5
2022 	$2,060.1 	$313.1 	$240.3 	$2,613.5 	$947.4 	$326.5 	$335.2 	$4,222.6
2021 	$1,985.5 	$307.1 	$228.1 	$2,520.7 	$901.9 	$323.6 	$316.0 	$4,062.1
2020 	$1,898.4 	$306.0 	$222.6 	$2,427.1 	$865.3 	$292.7 	$325.3 	$3,910.4
2019 	$1,785.3 	$295.8 	$214.3 	$2,295.3 	$765.2 	$282.5 	$309.6 	$3,652.7
2018 	$1,685.3 	$287.1 	$198.9 	$2,171.2 	$706.1 	$262.1 	$311.1 	$3,450.6
2017 	$1,584.7 	$279.5 	$187.5 	$2,051.7 	$677.1 	$256.2 	$288.0 	$3,273.0
2016 	$1,475.8 	$258.8 	$169.7 	$1,904.3 	$649.5 	$247.4 	$270.7 	$3,071.9
2015 	$1,374.6 	$251.2 	$153.7 	$1,779.5 	$637.3 	$243.3 	$276.0 	$2,936.1
2014 	$1,308.4 	$236.5 	$143.0 	$1,687.9 	$616.8 	$218.3 	$258.0 	$2,781.0
2013 	$1,279.8 	$228.0 	$138.0 	$1,645.7 	$610.2 	$205.5 	$240.7 	$2,702.1
2012 	$1,223.6 	$209.8 	$128.3 	$1,561.7 	$564.8 	$193.1 	$209.3 	$2,529.0
2011 	$1,214.3 	$217.5 	$129.9 	$1,561.7 	$436.3 	$180.7 	$205.1 	$2,383.8
2010* 	$1,231.4 	$253.3 	$141.2 	$1,625.8 	$462.3 	$186.8 	$231.7 	$2,506.6
2009 	$1,418.5 	$285.2 	$175.1 	$1,878.8 	$587.3 	$215.9 	$277.3 	$2,959.3
2008 	$1,367.4 	$264.2 	$166.2 	$1,797.7 	$544.8 	$201.2 	$276.9 	$2,820.7
2007* 	$1,291.6 	$243.7 	$148.4 	$1,683.7 	$502.4 	$178.0 	$229.7 	$2,593.7
2006 	$987.1 	$228.9 	$141.8 	$1,357.9 	$457.7 	$152.2 	$213.2 	$2,180.9
2005 	$964.7 	$223.4 	$138.3 	$1,326.3 	$407.6 	$142.8 	$205.5 	$2,082.1

-- 12 of 15 --

22-Year History Percentage of Total
23
Fiscal 	Public 	College & 	All Other 	Total 	Health & 	Adult & Juv 	All Other
Year 	Schools 	Universities 	Education 	Education 	Welfare 	Corrections 	Agencies 	Total
2026 	49.0% 	6.8% 	5.9% 	61.7% 	21.9% 	7.2% 	9.3% 	100%
2025 	50.4% 	6.9% 	5.8% 	63.1% 	21.7% 	7.3% 	8.0% 	100%
2024 	52.1% 	6.8% 	5.7% 	64.6% 	20.7% 	7.1% 	7.6% 	100%
2023 	50.1% 	7.3% 	5.4% 	62.8% 	22.2% 	7.5% 	7.5% 	100%
2022 	48.8% 	7.4% 	5.7% 	61.9% 	22.4% 	7.7% 	7.9% 	100%
2021 	48.9% 	7.6% 	5.6% 	62.1% 	22.2% 	8.0% 	7.8% 	100%
2020 	48.5% 	7.8% 	5.7% 	62.1% 	22.1% 	7.5% 	8.3% 	100%
2019 	48.9% 	8.1% 	5.9% 	62.8% 	20.9% 	7.7% 	8.5% 	100%
2018 	48.8% 	8.3% 	5.8% 	62.9% 	20.5% 	7.6% 	9.0% 	100%
2017 	48.4% 	8.5% 	5.7% 	62.7% 	20.7% 	7.8% 	8.8% 	100%
2016 	48.0% 	8.4% 	5.5% 	62.0% 	21.1% 	8.1% 	8.8% 	100%
2015 	46.8% 	8.6% 	5.2% 	60.6% 	21.7% 	8.3% 	9.4% 	100%
2014 	47.0% 	8.5% 	5.1% 	60.7% 	22.2% 	7.8% 	9.3% 	100%
2013 	47.4% 	8.4% 	5.1% 	60.9% 	22.6% 	7.6% 	8.9% 	100%
2012 	48.4% 	8.3% 	5.1% 	61.8% 	22.3% 	7.6% 	8.3% 	100%
2011 	50.9% 	9.1% 	5.5% 	65.5% 	18.3% 	7.6% 	8.6% 	100%
2010* 	49.1% 	10.1% 	5.6% 	64.9% 	18.4% 	7.5% 	9.2% 	100%
2009 	47.9% 	9.6% 	5.9% 	63.5% 	19.8% 	7.3% 	9.4% 	100%
2008 	48.5% 	9.4% 	5.9% 	63.7% 	19.3% 	7.1% 	9.8% 	100%
2007* 	49.8% 	9.4% 	5.7% 	64.9% 	19.4% 	6.9% 	8.9% 	100%
2006 	45.3% 	10.5% 	6.5% 	62.3% 	21.0% 	7.0% 	9.8% 	100%
2005 	46.3% 	10.7% 	6.6% 	63.7% 	19.6% 	6.9% 	9.9% 	100%

-- 13 of 15 --

22-Year History Year-Over-Year Growth
24
Fiscal 	Public 	College & 	All Other 	Total 	Health & 	Adult & Juv 	All Other 	Total
Year 	Schools 	Universities 	Education 	Education 	Welfare 	Corrections 	Agencies 	Gen Fund
2026 	$102.7 	$18.5 	$23.4 	$144.7 	$88.2 	$21.9 	$102.3 	$357.1
2025 	($46.9) 	$11.2 	$11.5 	($24.3) 	$70.8 	$12.1 	$27.1 	$85.8
2024* 	$380.8 	$15.9 	$45.1 	$441.7 	$46.1 	$24.9 	$43.8 	$556.5
2023 	$258.0 	$25.0 	$9.2 	$292.2 	$77.2 	$18.9 	$13.7 	$401.9
2022 	$74.6 	$6.0 	$12.2 	$92.8 	$45.5 	$2.9 	$19.2 	$160.5
2021 	$87.0 	$1.0 	$5.5 	$93.6 	$36.6 	$30.9 	($9.3) 	$151.7
2020 	$113.1 	$10.3 	$8.3 	$131.7 	$100.1 	$10.2 	$15.7 	$257.6
2019 	$100.0 	$8.7 	$15.4 	$124.1 	$59.1 	$20.4 	($1.5) 	$202.1
2018 	$100.6 	$7.5 	$11.4 	$119.5 	$29.0 	$6.0 	$23.1 	$177.6
2017 	$108.9 	$20.8 	$17.7 	$147.4 	$27.6 	$8.8 	$17.4 	$201.1
2016 	$101.2 	$7.6 	$16.0 	$124.7 	$12.2 	$4.2 	($5.3) 	$135.8
2015 	$66.2 	$14.7 	$10.8 	$91.7 	$20.5 	$25.0 	$18.0 	$155.1
2014 	$28.5 	$8.6 	$5.0 	$42.1 	$6.7 	$12.8 	$17.3 	$78.9
2013 	$56.2 	$18.1 	$9.7 	$84.1 	$45.3 	$12.4 	$31.4 	$173.1
2012 	$9.3 	($7.7) 	($1.7) 	($.0) 	$128.5 	$12.4 	$4.2 	$145.1
2011 	($17.1) 	($35.8) 	($11.2) 	($64.1) 	($26.0) 	($6.1) 	($26.6) 	($122.7)
2010* 	($187.2) 	($31.9) 	($34.0) 	($253.0) 	($125.0) 	($29.2) 	($45.6) 	($452.7)
2009 	$51.2 	$20.9 	$8.9 	$81.1 	$42.4 	$14.8 	$.4 	$138.6
2008 	$75.8 	$20.5 	$17.8 	$114.1 	$42.5 	$23.2 	$47.2 	$227.0
2007* 	$304.5 	$14.8 	$6.5 	$325.8 	$44.7 	$25.8 	$16.5 	$412.8
2006 	$22.4 	$5.6 	$3.6 	$31.5 	$50.1 	$9.4 	$7.7 	$98.8
2005 	$21.7 	$5.4 	$6.9 	$34.0 	$31.7 	$2.1 	$10.2 	$78.1

-- 14 of 15 --

26
FY 2026 Revenue Detail
Historical Collections
Month 	July 	Aug 	Sept 	Oct 	Nov 	Dec 	Jan 	Feb 	Mar 	Apr 	May 	June 	Total
1 	FY 22 Actual Collections $404.0 	$378.6 	$459.1 	$415.1 	$350.0 	$560.5 	$652.4 	$306.1 	$382.1 	$1,290.3 	$389.0 	$610.3 	$6,197.6
2 	FY 23 Actual Collections $416.1 	$386.9 	$532.3 	$455.5 	$360.7 	$543.4 	$624.8 	$268.3 	$342.3 	$933.0 	$355.7 	$729.2 	$5,948.0
3 	FY 24 Actual Collections $406.0 	$392.9 	$513.9 	$374.8 	$346.3 	$562.1 	$599.3 	$281.1 	$363.8 	$857.6 	$268.0 	$745.3 	$5,711.3
4 	FY 25 Actual Collections $389.2 	$411.5 	$576.6 	$368.1 	$390.3 	$615.7 	$531.7 	$303.6 	$333.9 	$860.9 	$340.0 	$755.9 	$5,877.3
5 	Difference FY24 and FY25 ($16.8) 	$18.6 	$62.8 	($6.8) 	$44.0 	$53.6 	($67.6) 	$22.5 	($30.0) 	$3.3 	$72.0 	$10.6 	$166.1
Forecast vs. Last Year
6 	FY26 DFM Forecast $367.4 	$419.6 	$498.0 	$401.0 	$401.4 	$518.6 	$553.8 	$322.4 	$340.6 	$751.3 	$388.2 	$550.2 	$5,512.6
7 	FY26 DFM Forecast - Actual FY25 ($21.8) 	$8.0 	($78.7) 	$32.9 	$11.1 	($97.1) 	$22.1 	$18.8 	$6.7 	($109.5) 	$48.2 	($205.7) ($364.7)
8 	% Difference Between FY25 Actual and Forecast (5.6%) 	1.9% 	(13.6%) 	8.9% 	2.8% 	(15.8%) 	4.2% 	6.2% 	2.0% 	(12.7%) 	14.2% 	(27.2%) 	(6.2%)
9 	Cumulative Difference ($21.8) 	($13.8) 	($92.4) 	($59.5) 	($48.4) 	($145.5) ($123.3) ($104.5) 	($97.8) 	($207.3) ($159.1) ($364.7)
10 	Cumulative % Change FY25 (5.6%) 	(1.7%) 	(6.7%) 	(3.4%) 	(2.3%) 	(5.3%) 	(3.8%) 	(2.9%) 	(2.5%) 	(4.3%) 	(3.1%) 	(6.2%)
FY26 Collections
11 	FY26 Actual Collections $367.4 	$419.6 	$498.0 	$401.0 	$401.4 	$621.0 	$2,708.3
12 	FY26 Cumulative $367.4 	$787.0 	$1,284.9 $1,685.9 $2,087.3 $2,708.3
Actual vs Last Year
13 	Monthly Difference ($21.8) 	$8.0 	($78.7) 	$32.9 	$11.1 	$5.3 	($43.1)
14 	% Change from FY25 (5.6%) 	1.9% 	(13.6%) 	8.9% 	2.8% 	0.9% 	(0.7%)
15 	Cumulative Difference ($21.8) 	($13.8) 	($92.4) 	($59.5) 	($48.4) 	($43.1)
16 	Cumulative % Change FY25 (5.6%) 	(1.7%) 	(6.7%) 	(3.4%) 	(2.3%) 	(1.6%)

-- 15 of 15 --

MINUTES
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
DATE: Thursday, January 22, 2026
TIME: 3:00 P.M.
PLACE: Room WW53
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Ricks, Vice Chairman Adams, Senators Grow, Bernt, Den Hartog,
Rabe, and Taylor
ABSENT/
EXCUSED:
Senators Anthon and Toews
NOTE: The sign-in sheet, testimonies and other related materials will be retained with
the minutes in the committee's office until the end of the session and will then be
located on file with the minutes in the Legislative Services Library.
CONVENED: Chairman Ricks called the meeting of the Senate Local Government and
Taxation Committee (Committee) to order at 3:04 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES
ASSIGNMENT:
Vice Chairman Adams assigned specific Pending Rules for several members of
the Committee to review.
For Docket 35.01.02 Idaho Sales and Use Tax Administrative Rules: Senator
Rabe was assigned Rules .002 - .031. Senator Bernt was assigned Rules .032 -
.056. Senator Taylor was assigned Rules .057 - .083. Vice Chairman Adams was
assigned Rules .084 - .137.
For Docket 35.01.06 Hotel/Motel Room and Campground Sale Tax Administrative
Rules, Senator Toews was assigned Rules .000 - .017.
PRESENTATION: Housing. Emily Hamilton, Senior Research Fellow, Director of Urbanity Project,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University, gave a presentation on Land Use
Regulations and Housing Affordability in Idaho (Attachment 1). She discussed
changes in zoning regulations in four cities which adopted different policies that
allowed more housing to be built (page 6). Buffalo, New York reduced parking
requirements (page 7). Page 8showed four "superstar cities," Los Angeles, San
Francisco, New York, and Boston that had stagnant supplies of apartments which
led to higher housing costs. However, Washington, D.C. and Seattle, which were
open to apartment construction, had lower housing costs. Palisades Park, New
Jersey saw a lot of duplex construction (page 9). This resulted in population
growth with no additional infrastructure. In addition, property tax rates decreased
(page 10). Page 12 demonstrated the benefit of allowing accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). Eighteen states legalized ADUs. Ten states had no occupancy
requirements, allowed ADU permits by right without requiring a public hearing,
allowed both attached and detached units, and banned parking requirements.
Increased housing required the cooperation between state and local
governments. Montana adopted laws with the intent of building more housing at
a lower cost. Missoula, Montana adopted a comprehensive plan which nearly
doubled zoning for housing units.
Some localities reformed their building codes to allow for taller buildings to
be built with a single staircase. Others, including some cities in Idaho, have
reformed their building code to include triplexes under the residential code with
lower costs rather than the commercial code.

-- 1 of 4 --

DISCUSSION: Senator Bernt requested suggestions for building code reform that could
create more affordable housing. Ms. Hamilton suggested that model code
organizations do an analysis of their existing regulations. She clarified that
in Idaho localities did not have the authority to amend building codes. That
authority belonged to the state. Senator Bernt asked Ms. Hamilton to share her
experience of when allowing ADUs had been positive for a neighborhood, and
where they were not. Ms. Hamilton stated that ADUs made a big difference in
housing supply with modest changes to a neighborhood.
Senator Grow asked Ms. Hamilton to comment on the trend of young home
buyers purchasing smaller homes. Ms. Hamilton cited Houston as an example
of a city that had decreased their lot size requirement resulting in 80,000 small
lot homes being built. Senator Grow then asked Ms. Hamilton to discuss how
communities might overcome resistance to apartments or other large dwellings.
Ms. Hamilton responded that Home Owner Associations have had voluntary
covenants with protections. People enjoyed the increased amenities and tax
revenue those dwellings brought.
Senator Den Hartog inquired about the effect of institutional investors on the
cost of housing in Idaho. Ms. Hamilton responded that these entities invested
where scarcity of housing was caused by restrictive zoning requirements.
Senator Rabe requested that Ms. Hamilton comment on the impact of ADUs on
infrastructure. Ms. Hamilton commented that ADUs did not generally have a
large impact on infrastructure. However, in some instances the ADU permit was
contingent on making improvements to infrastructure.
Chairman Ricks cited a study by the Lincoln Institute that a higher density in
population can increase property taxes as a result of an increased need for
infrastructure and asked Ms. Hamilton to comment on that. Ms. Hamilton
commented that, generally, marginal changes were required in infrastructure.
However, greenfield construction in what was previously agricultural land could
be more expensive.
Senator Rabe commented that there was a lot of discussion about infrastructure
and financing in the housing committee that met during the summer and fall.
PRESENTATION: Housing. Chris Cargill, President and CEO of Mountain States Policy Center,
gave a presentation on polling relating to the need for affordable housing in
Idaho (Attachment 2). Fifty-six percent of those polled by the Mountain States
Policy Center in January 2026 felt the need for affordable housing was very
serious and 30 percent felt it was a serious problem (page 3). The number of
women who felt it was a very serious concern outnumbered men who shared
that concern by nearly 20 percent (page 4). When asked what was the best
way to address housing affordability in their community, 47 percent of those
polled favored increased rent controls and more public housing and 35 percent
supported reduced regulations and making it easier for private builders (page
6). Eighty-seven percent of those responding favored allowing more flexibility to
build a small additional housing unit on their property (page 9). The poll showed
that 69 percent of those polled favored automatic approval of housing permits if
local regulators did not respond within a reasonable amount of time (page 11).
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
Thursday, January 22, 2026—Minutes—Page 2

-- 2 of 4 --

Mr. Cargill next discussed a poll done by Change Research in November of
2025. Ninety-five percent of those polled felt the cost of renting or buying a home
in Idaho was a major or minor problem (page 14). Seventy-seven percent of
those responding thought there were not enough affordable homes to rent or buy
(page 15). When asked whether legislators should take action to address the
housing shortage and cost of housing, 53 percent of those polled strongly agreed
and 25 percent somewhat agreed (page 16). The majority of those polled felt
that their city or town was not doing a good job or doing a poor job in keeping
housing affordable (page 17). Change Research next asked what policies
they would support. The vast majority supported allowing apartment homes in
moderately sized buildings near business and shopping districts, making it easier
to build ADUs, and allowing faith institutions to build housing for lower income
households with a simplified permit (page 18). Only 48 percent supported making
it easier to build duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses (page 18).
Madilynne Clark, Senior Policy Analyst at Mountain States Policy Center,
continued the presentation. Ms. Clark noted that in the last few years, housing
prices rose by 2.2 percent while inflation rose by 3 percent (page 21). Page 22
illustrated the number of single-family home starts since 1959 as compared
to total housing starts. There was a shortage of housing with more than one
bedroom which disadvantaged the most vulnerable families. Page 23 showed
the housing shortage state by state. Page 24 showed the housing affordability
index for each state for 2010, 2020, and 2025. Idaho's affordability index rose
six fold in the last five to six years. The current and projected housing for Idaho,
Montana, Washington, and Wyoming was illustrated on pages 25 through 28.
Ms. Clark next discussed several policies that could help increase the affordable
housing supply to meet the demand. First, streamlining the regulatory process
by setting a time limit for approval of building permits with financial penalties or
other consequences to the regulatory authority. Second, removing barriers to
land availability, for example, allowing light touch density or allowing construction
on some Bureau of Land Management lands. Third, not favoring one type of
building over another, for example, by adding extra permitting requirements
for manufactured homes. Finally, attracting businesses through favorable tax
policies resulting in an increase in jobs with higher wages.
DISCUSSION: Senator Den Hartog asked Ms. Clark whether there were any studies on the
increase in divorce rate and an increased demand for housing. Ms. Clark
responded that she had not studied that, but that there was a need for housing
with more than one bedroom. Furthermore, the divorce rate and the trend of
marrying at an older age affected the demand.
Chairman Ricks commented that there was a balance between the expense
of new infrastructure and the need for more affordable housing. And given that
households were smaller, allowing ADUs would provide some additional housing.
The capacity of infrastructure and parking were also important considerations. In
addition, Chairman Ricks expressed a concern regarding institutional investors
who had entered housing scarce markets. In response, Ms. Clark stated that
investment in housing by remote investors in Idaho was less than 1 percent
according to a study by the American Enterprise Institute.
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
Thursday, January 22, 2026—Minutes—Page 3

-- 3 of 4 --

Senator Grow noted that with increased population and housing density with
apartments, duplexes and so forth, there were issues with road capacity and
parking and asked Ms. Hamilton to comment. Ms. Hamilton stated that it was
important for localities to consider managing on-street parking, reducing parking
requirements, and the cost of providing multi-family parking. Senator Grow
noted that while the cost of regulation was about a fourth of the cost of housing,
cities and counties relied on the revenue from those permits and asked Ms.
Hamilton to comment on that. Ms. Hamilton suggested that permit fees could be
tailored to the actual cost of servicing that housing.
Senator Taylor inquired whether second home ownership in Idaho affected
the cost of housing. Ms. Clark explained that it did not have a large impact
on housing affordability.
ADJOURNED: There being no further business at this time, Chairman Ricks adjourned the
Committee at 4:10 p.m.
___________________________ ___________________________
Senator Ricks Meg Lawless
Chair Secretary
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
Thursday, January 22, 2026—Minutes—Page 4

-- 4 of 4 --

MINUTES
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
DATE: Tuesday, January 20, 2026
TIME: 3:00 P.M.
PLACE: Room WW53
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Ricks, Vice Chairman Adams, Senators Grow, Bernt, Den Hartog, Toews,
Rabe, and Taylor
ABSENT/
EXCUSED:
Senators Anthon
NOTE: The sign-in sheet, testimonies and other related materials will be retained with
the minutes in the committee's office until the end of the session and will then be
located on file with the minutes in the Legislative Services Library.
CONVENED: Chairman Ricks called the meeting of the Senate Local Government and Taxation
Committee (Committee) to order at 3:02 p.m.
PASSED THE
GAVEL:
Chairman Ricks passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Adams.
WELCOME: Welcome and Overview of Session. Chairman Ricks gave an overview of the
session. The Committee will hear a presentation on housing by the Mercatus
Center on Thursday, January 22, 2026. There will be a bill to conform Idaho with
the One, Big, Beautiful Act recently passed by the U.S. Congress.
DISCUSSION: Senator Grow explained that Governor Little indicated in his State of the State
address that he had tax conformity for Fiscal Year 2027, but not for the Fiscal Year
2026 which would be back to Fiscal Year 2025. He further announced that the Joint
Finance Appropriations Committee had set an anticipated revenue amount.
INTRODUCTION: Senate Page Jace Rackham. Vice Chairman Adams introduced Senate Page
Jace Rackham and asked him to tell the Committee about himself.
Mr. Rackham shared that he was a Senior at Nampa High School and planned to
go on an LDS mission after graduation.
DISCUSSION: Senator Taylor asked Mr. Rackham where he would like to go on his mission.
Mr. Rackham responded that he wanted to go somewhere where he would be
humbled and be pushed to his limits.
Senator Rabe inquired about Mr. Rackham's favorite part about living in Nampa.
Mr. Rackham stated that he enjoyed living near the lake and boating and wake
surfing on it.
Senator Grow asked Mr. Rackham if he had studied a foreign language in high
school. Mr. Rackham replied that he had not.
Senator Bernt asked Mr. Rackham what other activities he enjoyed. Mr.
Rackham answered that he enjoyed sports, in particular, weightlifting, football, and
cheerleading as well as spending time with his family.
Vice Chairman Adams stated that he was Mr. Rackham's Senate sponsor and
that he had enjoyed all the pages he had sponsored from Nampa High School. He
then asked Mr. Rackham if he wanted to ask any of the Senators a question. Mr.
Rackham responded that he did not.

-- 1 of 2 --

Chairman Ricks told Mr. Rackham that he appreciated him working with the
Committee. He then asked Mr. Rackham which pages were the best, the ones
who wore the red vests or the ones who wore the blue vests. Mr. Rackham said,
"Red all the way."
ADJOURNED There being no further business at this time, Vice Chairman Adams adjourned the
meeting of the Committee at 3:11 p.m.
___________________________ ___________________________
Senator Ricks Meg Lawless
Chair Secretary
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & TAXATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 20, 2026—Minutes—Page 2

-- 2 of 2 --