What to Watch: Week 7

23 Feb 2026, by Sara Westbrook Share :

While we are excited that two of the Idaho Association of Counties’ legislative priorities recently passed the House and will be heard in the Senate soon, we do not want to let up on the gas on these issues. Please reach out to your Senators to encourage their support for House Bill 620 and House Bill 556. We also encourage you to keep an eye on House Bill 743, which was introduced on Friday which would allow the attorney general to sue individual government employees, and government officials if the attorney general determines that they are out of compliance with a law. This could leave an employee or official personally liable for a fine of up to $50,000. In addition, it would also require withholding revenue sharing before a case is actually in front of a judge. Read on for the details on these three bills and how you can help.

Strengthen Local Choices in Federal Land Use Decisions

House Bill 620 will amplify counties’ voices in federal land-use decision-making by codifying the board of county commissioners’ standing as local land-use experts. This codification will make it clear to the federal government that when land use issues on federal lands come up, the board of county commissioners’s are experts, thus they need to be brought in at the beginning of the process. This bill has passed the House and will be heard in the Senate Local Government tomorrow (Tuesday, February 24), at 3:00 pm.

Please reach out to members of the Senate Local Government Committee to encourage them to pass House Bill 620. If you have any questions about this legislation, please reach out to Clay Boeckel (cboeckel@idcounties.org) or any member of our policy staff.

Increase Reimbursement Rates for State Inmates in County Jails

House Bill 556 passed the House this morning and is now on its way to the Senate, where it will be heard in Senate Judiciary and Rules. We cannot let up on the gas on this bill. Please reach out to your Senators this week to encourage them to support House Bill 556. As a reminder, here are a few quick facts on state-committed inmates in county jails:

As of December 2025 there were 1,275 state-committed inmates in county jails

The average length of stay for a state-committed inmate in county jails is 85 days
State-committed inmates are overcrowding county jails (25% of county jails were at capacity last year), increasing the strain on county sheriffs to maintain and operate county jails and creating greater legal liability for county property taxpayers
On average, a county pays $114.25 per day (including jail medical) to house a state-committed inmate
Excluding jail medical, the cost is $106.37 per day
IDOC pays over $85 per day to house inmates out of state, but only pays counties a maximum of $75 per day to house those same inmates
Counties spend an average of $49.5 million a year to house state-committed inmates, but only receive $34.1 million a year from IDOC to house those inmates
County property taxpayers must pay over $15 million a year to make up the difference

New Attorney General Powers to Withhold Revenue Sharing & Personally Liable to Pay Penalty up to $50,000

House Bill 743 was introduced last Friday in the House Ways and Means Committee. It is sponsored by the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, and the Pro Tempore of the Senate. The bill would allow the attorney general to file an action to enforce the law against a public officer, public employee, or public entity if the attorney general has reason to believe they failed to perform a duty as assigned by law or violated a prohibition imposed by law. It would apply to any law that lacks an established penalty for noncompliance or an enforcement mechanism.

If the court sides with the attorney general, a civil penalty of up to $50,000 may be imposed on a public officer or public employee who would be personally liable to pay.

In addition, if the attorney general files an action against a county or city, the attorney general must withhold revenue sharing before a judge even hears the case. If the court finds the county or city failed to comply with the law, then the withheld revenue sharing would go to the state, and the county or city would also have to cover the attorney general’s court costs and attorney’s fees. If the court finds that the law was not violated, the revenue sharing is reinstated, but court costs and attorney’s fees of the local prevailing party are not required to be covered.

The bill does not clearly explain how or if revenue-sharing funds can be restored to a county or city found in violation of the law.

House Bill 743 has been assigned to the House Judiciary and Rules Committee. Please reach out to the committee to explain how this would impact your county if the bill passed, using the talking points listed below.

House Judiciary & Rules Membership & Contact Information:

Chair: Bruce D. Skaug

Vice Chair: Joe Alfieri

Talking Points for House Bill 743

Key Policy Concerns with House Bill 743

House Bill 743 proposes substantial changes to enforcement authority, fiscal stability, and personal liability exposure, particularly for counties and cities.

Expanded Personal Financial Exposure — Up to $50,000

HB 743 authorizes civil penalties of up to $50,000 personally for a “willful” violation.

This represents a substantial escalation compared to existing Idaho law. For example, under the Idaho Open Meeting Law, personal fines range from $250 per member of a governing body who violates the law to up to $1,500 if they knowingly do so. This also allows for a cure that would negate the civil penalty.

Importantly, in HB 743, the $50,000 penalty could apply not only to elected officials but also to public employees.

This level of exposure:

Extends significant personal liability risk to government employees and local elected officials
May deter individuals from accepting or remaining in public employment
May deter qualified individuals from running for local office
Increases insurance and legal defense costs
Creates risk-averse administrative behavior in areas involving complex statutory interpretation

Public service at both the state and local levels could become materially less attractive due to extraordinary personal financial risk.

One-Sided Attorney Fee Recovery

HB 743 allows the Attorney General to recover court costs and attorneys’ fees if the state prevails.

If the accused party prevails, they are not entitled to recover their fees or costs.

This asymmetrical fee structure increases financial exposure even when local governments ultimately succeed in court, potentially incentivizing settlement decisions based on litigation cost risk rather than legal merit.

Withholding of Funds Prior to Judicial Determination

HB 743 authorizes the Attorney General to file suit and automatically withhold revenue-sharing funds upon filing, before any court determines whether a violation has occurred.

Essential public safety funding could therefore be frozen solely on the basis of an allegation. Traditionally, enforcement penalties follow adjudication, not the initiation of litigation.

Revenue-Sharing Funds Support Mandated Services

Approximately 90% of county services are mandated by state law. Mid-year withholding may require reopening adopted budgets, delaying payroll, reducing services, or shifting costs to local property taxpayers.

Revenue-sharing funds support core state-mandated functions, including:

Public safety
Court operations & maintenance
Juvenile detention & probation services
Prosecution of felonies within the county on behalf of the state
Death investigations
Planning & Zoning Administration
Record deeds, plats, liens, marriage licenses, and other official documents
Noxious weed control, and more

No Clear Remedy or Restoration Mechanism

The bill does not clearly define how revenue-sharing funds are restored.

Key questions that go unanswered in HB743 include:

If a court rules against a city or county, is revenue-sharing withheld indefinitely?
What specific corrective action triggers reinstatement?
Is there a formal cure process or timeline?

Without a defined remediation pathway, the withholding mechanism introduces prolonged fiscal uncertainty and operational risk.

Targeted and Uneven Enforcement Structure

HB 743 applies automatic revenue sharing withholding specifically to counties and cities upon the filing of a lawsuit by the attorney general. Other state agencies and governmental entities are not subject to automatic withholding of appropriated funds before adjudication.

This creates an uneven enforcement structure that treats county and city governments differently from other public entities.

Budget Instability and Long-Term Fiscal Impact

Counties must adopt balanced budgets under strict statutory deadlines. Sudden withholding of state-distributed funds:

Undermines fiscal planning
Creates uncertainty for employees and vendors
May affect bond ratings and long-term infrastructure financing

Stable and predictable funding streams are essential for responsible governance and capital planning.

HB 743 significantly alters the enforcement dynamic between the state and its local government partners. It creates due process implications, fiscal consequences, and workforce impacts that could endanger a county’s ability to fulfill its mandated responsibilities.