Notices will stay local for at least another year

 WEISER – Two separate bills aimed to drastically change how Gem State residents examined public notices perished during the 2025 Legislative session after critics – including some lawmakers – raised concerns about transparency and accessibility. 

House Bill 33 and House Bill 166 each aimed to amend the law to allow the electronic publication of public notices on the Idaho State Controller’s website. House Bill 33 died in the House of Representatives early in the session. 

House Bill 166, which resembled the earlier legislation, also called for electronic publication of public notices on the state controllers’ website and “certain abbreviated newspaper publications.”

House Bill 166 – sponsored by Rep. Jeff Ehler, R-Meridian and Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle – passed the House but stalled in the Idaho Senate where it sat in the Senate State Affairs committee until the session ended. The implication of both bills meant newspapers – the traditional purview of public notices – could potentially lose the income derived from such notifications. 

Supporters of the bill noted it aimed to modernize the printing of public notices by centralizing them on a single website, thus making them more easily accessible and cutting costs for taxpayers while also boosting efficiency. 

However, the legislative fiscal note attached to the bill estimated the “one-time” development costs for the legislation at more than $500,000. The fiscal note, asserted state agencies “would save at least $1 million annually in total publication fees.” The fiscal note also recorded “ongoing operations costs are estimated to be $300,000 annually.” 

 Critics of the two pieces of legislation also noted the Newspaper Association of Idaho already offers a free, searchable website called Idaho Public Notices.

 The issue with the legislation for Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, wasn’t its perceived costs or savings but rested more on philosophical notions regarding transparency and local newspapers. Boyle voted against the measure as did Rep. John Shirts, R-Weiser. 

“This bill was especially egregious because all of the (public) notices were going to be controlled by the state and be on a state website,” said Boyle.

The bill’s potential financial impact on small newspapers was also a major concern for some. For decades many small newspapers in the state relied on income generated from publishing legal notices. As the modern newspaper paradigm shifted – changing and declining readership along with diminishing advertising sales – income from legal notices played a larger role for many small publications. 

Boyle said especially in rural areas, a large share of the population gathers its news – including legal notices – from local newspapers. 

“So, a lot of our people are not going to go to a state website to see a public notice because some don’t have computers or the internet. It is our local papers where people are used to getting information,” said Boyle.

Sarah Imada, Weiser Signal American publisher, also noted the two bills overlooked the reliance on newspapers for rural subscribers, local governments and businesses regarding legal notices. 

“Many rural areas in the state of Idaho do not have access or are very limited to internet service and those taxpayers would not be able to keep informed of their local government activities. Also, taking away every legal notice such as notice to creditors, trustee and sheriff sales, name changes, etc. and putting it on a centralized site would make it so cumbersome for the citizens of Idaho. There needs to be transparency in government and legal notices in newspapers help with that process,” said Imada.

Boyle said centralizing information – including legal notices – by the government isn’t a good idea.

“I’m just suspicious enough of government – state or federal – that you don’t put everything in their hands,” she said.

Shirts said he, and other lawmakers, were concerned “some people who rely on, and just get their news, from the local paper wouldn’t be in tune with something posted online.”

“Putting everything online and hoping everyone will see it, I don’t think it is the best way to it. We want the broadest base of people to know what is going on in their community,” he said.

He also said the bill, if passed, was going to cost the state a lot of money to implement.

In an interview conducted in February regarding House Bill 33, Nate Marvin, Washington County commissioner, said the legislation wasn’t high on his priority list.

“We’ve got bigger fish to fry,” said Marvin.

 Marvin said philosophically he was on the fence regarding the concept.

“I know our local newspaper depends on that revenue to keep their costs down but some of the counties, especially the big counties, are spending tens of thousands of dollars on advertising,” he said.

In a February interview, Jim Harberd, Washington County Board of Commissioners chairman, said the legislation was not at the top of his priority list either. 

“As it is I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. I don’t know if it is the right thing or not. But I think it would be a hardship on a lot of people who rely on the paper for stuff like that,” he said.