Seeking to start a dialogue, Idaho legislator unveils local option tax proposal

Idaho state Rep. Britt Raybould, R-Rexburg, speaks from the House floor at the State Capitol building on Jan. 23, 2024. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
An Idaho legislator is seeking the public's feedback on a new proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution that would give voters the power to approve a new local option sales and use tax.
Rep. Britt Raybould, R-Rexburg, sponsored House Joint Resolution 5 and a companion bill, House Bill 375.
'As we have heard over the course of our service here … there has been interest expressed from our local communities about having a more general local use tax made available,' Raybould said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A new local sales and use tax would be a new tax for specific products or services in a specific city or county that would be put forward for local voters to approve or deny.
If voters approved a local sales and use tax, the tax would only be for specific products or services listed and only for local communities that vote to approve the new tax. The new tax would be in addition to the state's existing 6% sales tax.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to introduce both bills on Thursday morning, and both bills are available to the public on the Idaho Legislature's website, or by clicking on the highlighted bill number near the beginning of this article.
Raybould told legislators she isn't trying to pass House Joint Resolution 5 or House Bill 375 this year. Instead, Raybould said she put the proposals forward to circulate them publicly, gather feedback from Idahoans about her proposals and start a conversation.
'I want these ideas to be out there so that during the interim there can be ongoing conversations and proposals brought forward, because I felt that the time is ripe to resolve what this issue is going to look like going forward,' Raybould told legislators Thursday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise.
CONTACT US
House Joint Resolution 5 is a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution that would ask Idaho voters to decide whether to give counties or municipalities the option to authorize a new local sales and use tax within its jurisdiction. Under the proposal, the maximum levy rate would be 2% and be limited to a maximum of four years.
Even if statewide voters approve the proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution, no sales and use tax could be imposed unless it was also approved by a majority of voters within the jurisdiction during an general election taking place in an even numbered year.
Under the proposal, any proposed local option sales and use tax up for election would be required to include a detailed description of the product or services that would be subject to the tax, as well as a description of how the money collected through the new tax would be used.
Raybould said a new local option sales and use tax might be appealing to Idaho cities or counties that experience an influx of tourists and want to establish a local sales and use tax that targets products or services related to tourism, but doesn't really affect local residents.
'For instance, if I wanted to have a tax on hotels, I could establish that for the purposes of this particular local option tax, that it would apply to nights spent in a hotel,' Raybould said. 'You have to have an intended purpose. This can't just be for general maintenance and operations, there would need to be a specific purpose outlined.'
The bill also includes what Raybould described as a trade-off. If the proposed amendment passes, Raybould said it would phase out any existing sales or use taxes available to cities and counties, such as an auditorium district.
According to the Idaho State Tax Commission, there are three existing auditorium districts in place in Idaho. Those auditorium districts include:
The Greater Boise Auditorium District, or GBAD
The Idaho Falls Auditorium District
The Pocatello Auditorium District
'That would be the trade, essentially, is that for a local option tax with flexibility that you would do the trade off with, potentially, like an auditorium district,' Raybould said.
Raybould said the idea is that the new local option sales and use tax would eventually replace auditorium districts if her proposals pass.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to introduce Raybould's proposals, but several legislators had questions or concerns about phasing out existing auditorium districts.
'I do want to make sure that we really talk this through, because I'm not sure that something that could cause an auditorium district to go away or prevent other communities from creating one is in the best long term interests of the community,' said Rep. Steve Berch, a Boise Democrat who used to serve on the board of an auditorium district.
Raybould said existing auditorium districts would be allowed to remain in place until their stated expiration date.
'Whatever date exists on an existing auditorium district, they would be able to continue through the end of that period, but going forward the formation of any new district, assuming the amendment passed, would no longer be supported under the combination of these two bills,' Raybould said.
Introducing House Joint Resolution 5 and House Bill 375 clears the way for both proposals to return to the House Revenue and Taxations Committee for full public hearing. However, neither proposal is expected to pass this legislative session.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.

Miami Herald

an hour ago

• Miami Herald

Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump

Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan House resolution last week in a bid to curb President Donald Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. After the U.S. military carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday, Massie told CNN that he believed the resolution would have enough co-sponsors to "be able to force a vote unless [House Speaker Mike] Johnson pulls some shenanigans." Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Massie and Khanna introduced their War Powers Resolution in an effort to prohibit U.S. military involvement in Iran last Tuesday, amid the backdrop of escalating tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Khanna shared similar concerns in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Sunday after the strikes on Iran moved forward. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," the congressman said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, introduced companion legislation to the House resolution the day before his House colleagues. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," the senator said in a press release. Representative Ro Khanna, a California DemocratRepresentative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky RepublicanRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York DemocratRepresentative Val Hoyle, an Oregon DemocratRepresentative Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington DemocratRepresentative Donald Beyer, a Virginia DemocratRepresentative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Greg Casar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Delia Ramirez, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Summer Lee, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Nydia Velazquez, a New York DemocratRepresentative James McGovern, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Chellie Pingree, a Maine DemocratRepresentative Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Veronica Escobar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Paul Tonko, a New York DemocratRepresentative Becca Balint, a Vermont DemocratRepresentative Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey DemocratRepresentative Henry "Hank" Johnson, a Georgia DemocratDelegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Washington, D.C., DemocratRepresentative Sara Jacobs, a California DemocratRepresentative Janice Schakowsky, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Lateefah Simon, a California DemocratRepresentative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Mike Thompson, a California DemocratRepresentative Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona DemocratRepresentative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi DemocratRepresentative Luis Correa, a California DemocratRepresentative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio DemocratRepresentative Mark DeSaulnier, a California DemocratRepresentative Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Andre Carson, an Indiana DemocratRepresentative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Joaquin Castro, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Maxwell Frost, a Florida DemocratRepresentative Al Green, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland DemocratRepresentative Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Sylvia Garcia, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Teresa Leger Fernandez, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Diana DeGette, a Colorado DemocratSenator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities told Newsweek: "Iran has several options when it comes to retaliation, but will need to weigh them carefully. A stronger response may be useful for signaling Tehran's continuing resolve to internal and external audiences but it could also bring further U.S. military action and deeper U.S. involvement. Iran could target U.S. military bases and personnel in the Middle East." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU!" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Iran's foreign minister said after the attack that his country reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran in response. It's unclear whether the War Powers Resolution sponsored by Khanna and Massie, which aims to curb Trump's ability to take military action against Iran, will move forward in the House. However, with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, it is not widely expected to succeed. Related Articles Video of Bernie Sanders Reacting to Trump's Iran Strike Live Goes ViralJD Vance Issues Warning on Trump Admin's 'Biggest Red Line' for IranPutin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons'Operation Midnight Hammer': What We Know About the Iran Strikes 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Preserving America's grid: Congress must make hydropower a priority

As Congress turns its attention to a budget reconciliation bill that could shape the nation's energy future, it is essential not to overlook one of our most reliable and time-tested sources of baseload electricity: hydropower. My company has been fortunate to contribute to this critical industry for more than 40 years. But much of the budget reconciliation process in Washington has ignored hydropower. The House-passed bill is missing big opportunities to support this technology. Without continued investment in our hydroelectric infrastructure, we could face dire consequences. Our nation is currently focused on increasing domestic energy output, supporting technological innovation and creating jobs. Hydropower offers a compelling and often underappreciated value proposition. It is a foundation for emission-free grid reliability, economic development, job creation and energy independence. Unlike other renewable sources of electricity, hydropower delivers energy around the clock, making it an essential source of baseload power. Without hydropower's steady and reliable output, keeping the grid stable would become much harder and more expensive. Those rising costs don't disappear; they ultimately show up in consumers' energy bills. What's more, hydropower's flexibility allows it to ramp up quickly when demand spikes or when intermittent renewables like wind and solar dip unexpectedly. It's one of the few energy sources that can respond to grid needs in seconds. This makes it a vital partner in a grid increasingly dominated by variable demand and resources. Beyond its value to the grid, hydropower is a direct economic engine for America's communities. Hydropower facilities provide local jobs that are often high-paying technical positions, forging long-term career pathways for residents. Many hydropower projects also create and maintain reservoirs and waterways that support flood protection, agriculture, water storage, tourism, fishing, and outdoor recreation, contributing millions of dollars annually to local economies. In our decades of work in this field, we have seen these benefits drive prosperity for generations. Historically, hydropower hasn't received the same level of federal support as other energy sources, despite its strong track record. That needs to change. Through the reconciliation process, Congress has a pivotal chance to correct that imbalance and invest in one of our most dependable forms of U.S. energy. The bill text just released by the Senate is a step in the right direction, but there remains a host of critical priorities to strengthen our hydropower resources, such as extending the investment tax credits to dam safety and environmental upgrades at existing facilities and streamlining licensing and relicensing processes. America's hydropower fleet is aging, — most facilities are more than 65 years old. This longevity is a testament to hydropower's durability and value, but it also signals an urgent need for reinvestment. We see this firsthand as we work to repair aging and deteriorated dam structures. These facilities have the potential to serve our communities for decades to come as 'forever assets,' but only if we modernize them. This requires updated tax incentives, streamlined licensing processes and policies that reflect the crucial role of hydropower in our energy mix. If we let these critical assets deteriorate, the costs will fall directly onto consumers in the form of higher rates and lost services. We cannot let that happen. It is imperative that we act now. This is a defining moment. The next four years in Washington will be decisive for hydropower, as about 40 percent of the non-federal fleet is facing license expiration in the next decade. Many facilities could voluntarily shut down if the support they need isn't there. If hydropower isn't fully valued, our communities will pay the price with higher bills, fewer jobs and a less stable grid. I strongly urge lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to back hydropower and value it in the current budget bill and future legislative efforts. An investment in hydropower is an investment in the future of America's communities. Walter Rabe, PE, is the president and CEO of Schnabel Engineering, a national civil engineering firm specializing in dam and levee safety, geotechnical engineering, geostructural design, tunnel and underground engineering, and construction-phase engineering support.